Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-267_1an2.pdf
Page Number: 3

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

Syllabus 

in conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission.”  Id., 
at 192.  Pp. 14–16.

(d) A variety of factors may be important in determining whether a
particular position falls within the ministerial exception.  The circum-
stances that informed the Court’s decision in Hosanna-Tabor were rel-
evant because of their relationship to Perich’s “role in conveying the 
Church’s message and carrying out its mission.”  565 U. S., at 192.  But 
the recognition of the significance of those factors in Perich’s case did 
not mean that they must be met in all other cases.  What matters is 
what an employee does.  Implicit in the Hosanna-Tabor decision was 
a recognition that educating young people in their faith, inculcating its 
teachings, and training them to live their faith are responsibilities that
lie at the very core of a private religious school’s mission.  Pp. 16–21.

(e) Applying  this  understanding  of  the  Religion  Clauses  here,  it  is 
apparent that Morrissey-Berru and Biel qualify for the exception rec-
ognized  in  Hosanna-Tabor.    There  is  abundant  record  evidence  that 
they both performed vital religious duties, such as educating their stu-
dents in the Catholic faith and guiding their students to live their lives 
in  accordance  with  that  faith.    Their  titles  did  not  include  the  term 
“minister” and they had less formal religious training than Perich, but 
their core responsibilities were essentially the same.  And their schools 
expressly saw them as playing a vital role in carrying out the church’s 
mission.  A religious institution’s explanation of the role of its employ-
ees in the life of the religion in question is important.  Pp. 21–22. 

(f) The  Ninth  Circuit  mistakenly  treated  the  circumstances  the 
Court found relevant in Hosanna-Tabor as a checklist of items to be 
assessed and weighed against each other.  That rigid test produced a 
distorted analysis.  First, it invested undue significance in the fact that
Morrissey-Berru  and  Biel  did  not  have  clerical  titles.    Second,  it  as-
signed too much weight to the fact that Morrissey-Berru and Biel had 
less formal religious schooling that Perich.  Third, the St. James panel
inappropriately diminished the significance of Biel’s duties.  Respond-
ents  would  make  Hosanna-Tabor’s  governing  test  even  more  rigid.
And they go further astray in suggesting that an employee can never 
come  within  the  Hosanna-Tabor  exception  unless  the  employee  is  a 
“practicing” member of the religion with which the employer is associ-
ated.  Deciding such questions risks judicial entanglement in religious
issues.  Pp. 22–27. 

No. 19–267, 769 Fed. Appx. 460; No. 19–348, 911 F. 3d 603, reversed and 

remanded. 

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., 
and  THOMAS,  BREYER,  KAGAN,  GORSUCH,  and  KAVANAUGH,  JJ.,  joined.