The Supreme Court decided its most important religious-freedom case in decades yesterday. And President Barack Obama lost, 9-0.
The case, Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, concerns whether religious groups should be free from government interference when choosing their religious leaders. For decades, the lower courts have applied a doctrine called the “ministerial exception,” which prohibits the government from using discrimination laws to force religious organizations to hire or fire particular individuals for jobs with important religious functions. All the lower courts agreed that the ministerial exception existed, but there was some variation as to whether employees with only some religious duties were covered — for example, a teacher who teaches religion in the morning and math in the afternoon.
In its first case considering the issue, the unanimous court agreed that the First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering in these types of decisions. The court explained that the First Amendment “protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments” and that such groups are entitled to “control over the selection of those who will personify their beliefs.” The court found that even an employee who has some secular duties (e.g., teaching math) can qualify as a ministerial employee based on her religious functions (e.g., teaching religion, leading worship services, etc.).
On its own terms, the decision is a huge victory for religious groups. Had the government won the case, courts and government bureaucracies would have been in the position to order churches to hire or retain particular individuals in religious positions, even if the religious group no longer wanted them. If anything, the separation of church and state should mean that the government bureaucrats have no business deciding who will preach and teach any religious faith.
But the bigger story of the case is the court’s emphatic rejection of the narrow view of religious liberty offered by the Obama administration. The administration had argued that religious groups had no greater right to pick their leaders than labor unions or social clubs. And it had argued that even an employee whose job includes teaching the faith to children would not be a minister if she also had any secular duties. Of course, as Chief Justice John Roberts remarked at the oral argument, even the Pope would fail that test, as he surely has occasional secular duties as the head of the Vatican state.
In the unanimous decision, the court emphatically and repeatedly rejected the administration’s narrow view of religious liberty. For example, when discussing the government’s argument that churches should just rely on the freedom-of-association rights to choose their own leaders (the way labor unions and social clubs might), the court rejected that argument as “remarkable” and “untenable.” When considering the government’s efforts to narrow who can be considered a minister, the court called the Obama administration’s position “extreme.” At the oral argument, even Justice Elena Kagan — who was appointed by President Obama and previously served as his solicitor general — noted that the government’s narrow view of the First Amendment was an “amazing” position (and not in the good way).
Such an emphatic rejection of the administration’s crabbed view of religious liberty is likely to have broader consequences. The administration has aggressively used its narrow view of religious liberty in other contexts. For example, when issuing recent regulations to require all employers to pay for contraceptives, sterilizations and drugs that likely cause abortions, the administration issued the narrowest conscience clause in history — one that would exclude a Catholic hospital simply because it is willing to serve Jewish patients.
When attempting to explain its historically narrow protection for conscience, the administration echoed its arguments from the Hosanna-Tabor case, saying the clause is only meant to protect a church from being forced to offer the drugs to employees in “certain religious positions.” The administration argued that its clause sought only to protect “the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions.” Given the government’s stingy view of who counts as “ministerial,” it is clear the administration does not think the First Amendment provides much protection for religion.
Hopefully, yesterday’s rejection of such a narrow view of religious liberty as “extreme,” “remarkable” and “untenable” will convince the administration to reconsider its approach to religious-freedom issues — and to provide the types of protections for religion that are required by the Constitution and federal law. If not, the president may encounter even more troubles in court on these issues, particularly now that other judges see the Supreme Court emphatically and unanimously rejecting the administration’s extreme position.
Mark Rienzi is a law professor at The Catholic University of America and an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church.
Tim Drake: Register Radio: HHS Mandate Update and Chart-topping Advent Music
Edward Pentin: U.S. Ambassador to Holy See Steps Down
Comments
Post a Comment
Most insurance companies ALREADY COVER CONTRACEPTIVES. They have been doing so since the 90s.
Sorry to point this out. I don’t think you all are able to read the fine print. Just that you want your Republican naivete agenda or that the Bishops forgot their bifocals. Send them to the eye doctor. I went. I got mine. It wasn’t so bad.
What was the case?
@Jeanne Insurance companies cover what is in the contract with that group, and typically Catholic organizations exclude contraception and abortion. (I worked for a Catholic college and this was true of our contract.)
@JeanneTPA,
I think you’re missing the point here. Yes most insurance companies cover insurance, but not all, and in many states any plan with prescription drug coverage requires contraceptives. However, many states also have conscience protections, some good, most not. What this federal legislation means, if it goes unchallenged, is that all organizations will be required, by federal law, to offer contraception. With weak conscience protection, Catholic institutions who wish to remain faithful to the teachings of the Church would be required to compromise their beliefs by offering something that we believe to be morally illicit and at odds with authentic humanity (and authentic femininity).
This is about freedom for religions to operate their institutions, as well as their churches, according to their beliefs. You’re not “pointing out” anything people don’t already no, and no amount of caps locks or ad hominems against the Bishops will change this.
Telling that the phrase “house of worship” was used by the admin. Falls in line with the “freedom of worship” instead of freedom of religion issue Obama has. The ability to sing songs and such behind doors they can tolerate, actually living one’s faith, and that faith informing one’s behavior, they can not.
Obama seems perplexed that people in America are not happy to have all the religious liberty that, say, cold war Poland had. The Poles could go to their “house of worship” and that was it.
I remember journalists gushing over the “constitutional law professor” Obama in the 08 election. Of course he was a lecturer, never a professor—basically a TA who can’t find a job. But to the extent he knew anything of the constitution it was in the same manner that an arsonist may know something about sprinkler systems and smoke alarms. Not for the same ends that a fire inspector would study such things.
When liars refuse to give the truth, you have to be able and willing to find it for yourself. The National Catholic Register is tellingly graceless and uncautious in its demonstration of loyalty to the New World Order GOP and the use of politics to promote their agendas. This is the second time the same story, about the Supreme Court decision about worker rights of “ministers”, under different headlines, has appeared at the top of NCR headlines. It smells a lot like a craven corporatist drooling at the thought of being given uncontrolled latitude in abusing employees into submission.
Ostensibly, the story deals with Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church being given compete permission to engage in what are patently anti worker rights actions against a teacher there, simply because they arbitrarily, and evidently, artificially, “defined” her as a “minister”. What slavering glee the National Catholic Register displays gloating about this representing “freedom of religion”.
While, at the same time, carefully ignoring the fact that it also represents a major blow to a single individual, the teacher who was dismissed and not for actions deleterious to her job!
The Lutheran Church has more than enough money to spare to buy attorneys, if not also Supreme Curt Justices, but what resources for the teacher are being endangered?
Note the craven fact that, at no time, in no article on the matter, does the National Catholic Register mention the teacher’s name!
This may be the only time you’ll see the abused individual’s name in the NWO NCR. It’s Cheryl Perich.
They say psychotic murderers cover their victims’ faces because they can’t stand to be reminded of the humkanity of the individual they have butchered. This is precisely what NCR displays in not even printing Ms. Perich’s name. This is an admission they know the Church has coimmitted a crime against God’s law and they can’t stand to get too close to it to see its malignance.
The NCR has no respect for the rights of the individual, certainly no sympathy for them and that leads to respect for them! They are only devoted to seeing the executive, political and corporate power wiedling monster that has grown from the teaching of Jesus get obscenely richer and more powerful.
Note, tellingly, how much they prate on about the “legal” right they are given to mistreat this individual they won’t name.
But, whart about God’s law? Don’t they have an overrriding obligation to God’s law? And doesn’t God’s law encompass a compassion that they are using temporal law to circumvent? Maybe the temporal law gives them the ability to do this to Ms. Perich, but God’s law can have different views on it. No wonder the Church comes out against theocracies and solely in favor of “democracy”. The rule of “democracy” is utilitarian obedience to “bottom line” profiting and conniving the favor of criminally compromised law makers. The Church is terrrified of society that makes honor count more than bribing corrput politicos in deciding policies!
Let’s hope Obama soon loses 32 million to zero!
When will the Church (catholic) get it right, and its members obey the true
teachings of our faith. Contraception and abortion are the evils most
Catholics are extremely disobedient of,in fact our conscience is dead when
it comes to knowing about this moral injustice.When a pregnancy is NO longer considered a blessing, and the culture of death along with Population control are at the forefront we have lost our way, and the only
hope that we have is that God will intervene and bring us back to our
senses.Most of us are afraid to contact our Bishops and Priests for fear
of rejection, and it’s a shame, because until your bishop and your priest
get involved nothing will change.
Personally I will never give up fighting for the Culture of Life, because
I don’t know how I could in God’s eyes.
Matt from Seattle
Julianpenrod,
Before you rush to Perich’s defense you might wish to know that 1. She identified as a minister and took a series of tax benefits and liabilities that she fell under as a minister, 2. The reason she was fired was not because of her illness, but because she went to an outside court to address her grievance of being allowed to resume her same exact position mid school year. If you had the slightest about this case, you would have known this religious community holds a religious belief that civil grievances against fellow worshipers be handled by the Church. By going to the EEOC she violated her own faith’s teachings and was fired for that reason.
@ julianpenrod: Dude (dudette) you got major issues. Deal with it before you spew your anger and hate. Peace be with you.
Posted by Neal on Thursday, Jan 12, 2012 1:17 PM (EST):
“This is about freedom for religions to operate their institutions…”
Don’t forget to add “using public money” to that sentence. If you want to receive public money—be paid for delivering services from Medicare and Medicaid funds, receive government grants and get government contracts—you must agree to the specified terms. Religious institutions want to refuse to meet the government’s terms yet continue to receive government money. The solution is for religious institutions to support themselves in their charitable and educational activities. If all Catholics are so concerned about these issues, they will happily donate their money to these institutions to allow them to operate according to Catholic doctrine.
However, given that 90% of the Catholic women working in any Catholic hospital, school or social agency have used or are using contraceptives, it is hard to imagine them being outraged that sterilization procedures or contraceptives are covered under their insurance plan. Besides, don’t Catholic hospitals already happily bill a husband’s insurance company for his wife’s health care expenses, even if it’s the couple’s second marriage after a divorce? If the first marriage was valid, they’re not really married. However no problem taking advantage of civil law that recognizes valid remarriage after divorce. But that’s income, while paying for contraceptives is spending.
I’m a lot more impressed by the consciences of bishops who are saying no to government money than those who are paying legal teams in an attempt to keep the taxpayer dollars coming.
The “ministerial exception” is a concept that is used as a diversion to obstruct the guaranteed Right to Religious Liberty for every human individual just as the concept of “person” has been used as a diversion to obstruct the guaranteed Right to Life for every human individual.
Neal, don’t forget that people who belong to various faith groups are part of the public too!
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.