Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


Supreme Court’s historic but unfinished ruling for religious liberty

Staff Report

In a historic ruling Wednesday, the US Supreme Court tackled a question as old as the Bible itself: Should secular rulers decide whether a religious worker is doing God’s work?

Not even people of faith easily know if one of their own is sincerely pious. And perhaps for that very reason, the high court decided that a religious institution – and not the government – has the sole authority under the First Amendment to make decisions about the employees who “shape its own faith and mission.”

MONITOR EDITORIAL: The Supreme Court and the ‘ministerial exception’

All nine justices agreed that churches and other religious groups are given “special solicitude” by the Constitution to sometimes stand apart from the laws of the land. The First Amendment guarantees both freedom of religious expression as well as no government “establishment” of religion.

In this case, the focus was on whether a teacher fired by a Lutheran church-school could sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court said she could not.

The case did not hinge on whether Cheryl Perich suffered discrimination because of an ailment. Rather, the court had to decide whether the nature and extent of her religious “functions” made her a minister, and thus subject to the church’s Bible-based disciplinary procedures.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

The church said she was fired for not sticking to those Christian principles. And the court wisely agreed that it should not even question that judgment.

Yet using the church’s own records and other evidence, the high court found that Ms. Perich was indeed a minister of the Hosanna-Tabor Church in Michigan. And for the first time, it affirmed the “ministerial exemption,” a legal precedent that lower courts have long used to shield religious bodies from employment laws.

Read More…

The Alabama Political Reporter is a daily political news site devoted to Alabama politics. We provide accurate, reliable coverage of policy, elections and government.

More from APR


Much of the response argues the map put forth by the state plainly fails to remedy issues with the prior map.


Alabama asked the Supreme Court to order a stay so that the maps can be used in the upcoming election season.


For the sake of targets of violent and truly threatening speech, we can only hope the consequences will be minimal.


The case concerning the constitutionality of whether states can make indigent defendants pay schedule-based cash bail originated in Cullman County.