Good news from the Supreme Court today, with a unanimous (but by no means sweeping) ruling upholding the rights of religious groups to hire and fire their ministers. Over at Bench Memos, Rick Garnett pops champagne:
Sometimes the news from 1 First Street is really, really good. Today, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in what some observers (ahem) had called one of the most important church-state decisions in decades. Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC vindicates clearly and strongly a crucial constitutional principle: The First Amendment protects religious liberty by forbidding governments from second-guessing religious communities’ decisions about who should be their teachers, leaders, and ministers. The chief justice’s opinion for the Court is well-reasoned, welcome, and correct. Indeed, I think it is one of his best yet.
Ed Whelan hails the “major victory” and draws attention to the next issue: who qualifies as a minister and who doesn’t?
In one concurring opinion, Justice Thomas expresses his view that courts should “defer to a religious organization’s good-faith understanding of who qualifies as a minister.” In a second concurrence, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kagan, calls for the inquiry to “focus on the function performed by persons who work for religious bodies,” rather than on whether a religious organization uses the term “minister” or has a concept of ordination.
An embarrassing setback for the Obama administration, whose breathtaking stance on religious liberty now has been rejected (at least in part) even by its own handpicked justices. As you prepare to read the inevitable denunciations of the Court as conservative and out-of-step, keep in mind that not a single judge accepted the administration’s argument. The Obama White House’s view on religious liberty now have been shown to lie outside even the liberal mainstream. It’s all a far cry from the sympathetic engagement he promised to religious Americans during the 2008 campaign.
January 11th, 2012 | 2:40 pm
I will repeat my contention that I have made for the past 3+ years regarding the many Catholic and Evangelical voters who were dissatisfied with the Bush administration and/or the Republican Party and registered that dissatisfaction by voting for Obama in 2008. When they (as some of them did) contended that often Catholic or Evangelical voters had been played as “useful idiots” by the Republican Party they made a point that had some validity. But becoming “useful idiots” to the Democratic Party was not the answer to that dilemma.
January 11th, 2012 | 3:08 pm
It’s interesting that Matthew Schmitz sees this first of all as an embarrassment for the Obama administration rather than a victory for religious liberty! Which is more important?
January 11th, 2012 | 3:48 pm
From the first link, “The administration’s lawyers had pressed an extreme view — one that no other court, and few scholars and experts, had embraced — and they convinced no one.”
Let’s see if it plays that way in the news media. If they even decide to cover it.
January 11th, 2012 | 4:54 pm
If they even decide to cover it.
Crowhill,
See the front page of the New York Times.
January 11th, 2012 | 7:12 pm
[...] The Obama Administration’s Embarrassment – Matthew Schmitz, First Things [...]
January 11th, 2012 | 7:21 pm
Regarding “the administration’s embarrassment,” someone over at Mirror of Justice notes the following:
January 12th, 2012 | 2:09 am
David, well isn’t that embarrassing.
Also embarrassing would be that the person who filed suit was a sick teacher angry at being replaced, and fired for suggesting a lawsuit was in order.
So perhaps we can be happy that “sweeping” doesn’t mean sweeping employees out the door on a whim.
January 12th, 2012 | 11:19 am
[...] See also What Comes After Hosanna-Tabor, The Administration’s Embarrassment. [...]
January 12th, 2012 | 11:43 am
“Thus it seems pertinent to note, with respect to the question of any hostility to religious freedom, that the EEOC originally filed this suit in 2007, during the Bush Administration, and appealed the District Court’s decision to the 6th Circuit on January 30, 2009, before any Obama appointees reached the EEOC Board.”
The bringing of the initial action could be understandable based upon a mistaken view of the earlier Smith case. However, the Obama Administration’s bizarre argument before the Supreme Court and inflammatory statements about this case by the Obama-appointed head of the EEOC are completely consistent with this Administration’s ongoing hostility towards religious freedom.
January 12th, 2012 | 12:41 pm
From the NYT lead, “In what may be its most significant religious liberty decision in two decades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.”
So the spin is simple. This is new.
January 12th, 2012 | 1:45 pm
So the spin is simple. This is new.
Mike,
I am trying to figure out how that is spin. The concept of a “ministerial exemption” has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court before. The Times says that “the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time recognized a ‘ministerial exception.’” That is perfectly accurate.
January 12th, 2012 | 9:47 pm
@Nickol: Spin is a matter of emphasis. Given that the Court is that of last resort from which there is no appeal, that they have dealt with something for the first time is hardly unusual. Dog bites man. But the NYT considers it news. So why emphasize it? I suggest because it was never in question before, as strongly indicated by the 9-0 decision, but someone wanted to give the impression that somehow new ground what being broken. It’s kind of like gay activists claiming that laws formalizing marriage as a man and a woman are really bans on gay marriage. Come to think of it, that’s the position of the NYT as well. Spin: taking the truth and giving it an emphasis that takes a position.
January 20th, 2012 | 11:31 pm
David, the reason it is embarrassing for the administration is that they were arguing that no ministerial exception exists at all, and this was extreme enough that it was rejected by the entire court. The Bush EEOC, whatever faults it had, did not rely on DOJ arguments that no ministerial exception existed. This administration is viciously opposed to religious liberty, and it earned a well-deserved rebuke from the Court.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact