The answer is that the lawsuits are barred.
Sotomayor dissents, joined by Ginsbug.
It is by Alito, so no Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Kagan or Sotomayor today.
"Although these teachers were not given the title of 'minister' and have less religious training than" the teacher in Hosanna-Tabor, an earlier case involving the ministerial exception, "we hold that their cases fall within the same rule that dictated our decision in Hosanna-Tabor. The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission."
"Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate."
"What matters, at bottom," Alito writes, "is what an employee does."
"When we apply this understanding of the Religion Clauses to the cases now before us, it is apparent that Morrissey-Berru and Biel qualify for the exemption we recognized in Hosanna-Tabor."
In his concurring opinion, joined by Gorsuch, Thomas notes that he writes "separately, however, to reiterate my view that the Religion Clauses require civil courts to defer to religious organizations' good-faith claims that a certain employee's position is 'ministerial.'" So he would take a broader stance than the rest of the majority: If a church or other religious organization says an employee is a minister, courts should defer to that.
We have the second decision, and it is indeed Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania.
It is by Justice Thomas. I'll just hand it over to Marty Lederman here. :)
The Third Circuit ruled that the various federal agencies lacked the authority to promulgate the exemptions. "This decision," Thomas writes, "was erroneous."
'We hold that the Departments had the authority to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections."
In other words, the Court has upheld the exemptions from the ACA's birth-control mandate for private employers with religious and moral objections.
The vote is 7-2. Kagan has an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Breyer. Ginsburg has a dissenting opinion, joined by Sotomayor.
Kagan says she would "uphold HRSA's statutory authority to exempt certain employers from the mandate, but for different reasons" and expresses doubts that the exemption will survive APA review when that issue goes back to the lower courts.
And we have an announcement from the court that tomorrow will be the last day for opinions.
The Kagan concurrence in Little Sisters suggests that the overbreadth of the new accommodation is an APA problem; that's a roadmap for invalidation of the accommodation in further cases.
And the announcement is on the home page now.
Folks, I have to step out to write today's decisions. I look forward to doing this one more time, tomorrow.
Submit Event
