Bench Memos

An Encouraging Morning for Religious Freedom

Early reports from friends and colleagues who attended this morning’s oral argument in the Hosanna-Tabor case are encouraging. It appears that the justices were near-united in treating the administration’s surprising and extremist position as, well, surprising and extremist. Three cheers for Prof. Doug Laycock and the Becket Fund’s whole team of merry warriors for religious liberty.

I was not present, but what I’ve heard makes me think that at least a majority of the justices will not only confirm that a ministerial exception is required by the Constitution, but will also reject the wooden, “count up the hours” approach taken by the Sixth Circuit to deciding the “who counts as a minister?” question. The Court recognizes, it appears, that “ministers” often spend time doing administrative chores, and this fact of life does not change the basic character of their vocation. This morning, I gather that the solicitor general argued that employees who have any important administrative functions are not ministers. To which the chief justice responded, “The Pope is a head of state and has important administrative functions, so he’s not a minister?”

Exactly. The better approach is to defer to religious institutions’ understandings of their employees’ functions and to take a more qualitative approach, considering a variety of factors, always with a focus on the doctrine’s goal, namely, protecting religious freedom by avoiding secular second-guessing and supervision over religious matters.

It is, again, good news that the Court seems to be on track in Hosanna-Tabor. Of course, as all Court-watchers know, a lot can happen between oral argument and the handing-down of an opinion, and oral arguments do not always reveal where the justices are or are going. Assuming, though, that the ministerial-exception is going to be affirmed, there remains the concern — and this is a concern that should be widely shared, on the left and the right alike — that the administration’s position in this case signals a serious and worrisome tone-deafness (or worse) when it comes to religious freedom.

— Richard W. Garnett is professor of law and associate dean at Notre Dame Law School.

Most Popular

Law & the Courts

‘Judges for the #Resistance’

At Politico, I wrote today about the judiciary’s activism against Trump on immigration: There is a lawlessness rampant in the land, but it isn’t emanating from the Trump administration. The source is the federal judges who are making a mockery of their profession by twisting the law to block the Trump ... Read More
White House

Trump’s Friendships Are America’s Asset

The stale, clichéd conceptions of Donald Trump held by both Left and Right — a man either utterly useless or only rigidly, transactionally tolerable — conceal the fact that the president does possess redeeming talents that are uniquely his, and deserve praise on their own merit. One is personal friendliness ... Read More

Columbia 1968: Another Untold Story

Fifty years ago this week, Columbia students riding the combined wave of the civil-rights and anti-war movements went on strike, occupied buildings across campus, and shut the university down. As you revisit that episode of the larger drama that was the annus horribilis 1968, bear in mind that the past isn’t ... Read More

Only the Strident Survive

‘I am not prone to anxiety,” historian Niall Ferguson wrote in the Times of London on April 22. “Last week, however, for the first time since I went through the emotional trauma of divorce, I experienced an uncontrollable panic attack.” The cause? “A few intemperate emails, inadvertently forwarded ... Read More

Poll Finds Nevada Voters Support School-Choice Programs

According to an April poll, a large number of Nevada voters support school-choice programs. The poll, conducted by Nevada Independent/Mellman, found that 70 percent of voters support a proposal for a special-needs Education Savings Account and 59 percent support expanding the funding for the current tax-credit ... Read More