Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-267_1an2.pdf
Page Number: 51

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

15 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

First, and as the Ninth Circuit explained, neither school 
publicly  represented  that  either  teacher  was  a  Catholic
spiritual leader or “minister.”  Neither conferred a title re-
flecting such a position.  Rather, the schools referred to both 
Biel and Morrissey-Berru as “lay” teachers, which the cir-
cuit courts have long recognized as a mark of nonministe-
rial, as opposed to “ministerial,” status.  See supra, at 3–4; 
App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 19–267, at 32a–42a; App. 91–
100, 127–164, 244–46, 320–329. 

In response, the Court worries that “attaching too much
significance to titles would risk privileging religious tradi-
tions with formal organizational structures over those that
are less formal.”  Ante, at 17.  That may or may not be true, 
but  it  is  irrelevant  here.  These  cases  are  not  about  “less 
formal” religions; they are about the Catholic Church and
its  publicized  and  undisputedly  “formal  organizational
structur[e].”  Ibid.  After all, the right to free exercise has 
historically “allow[ed] churches and other religious institu-
tions to define” their own “membership” and  internal “or-
ganization.”  McConnell, The Origins and Historical Under-
standing  of  Free  Exercise  of  Religion,  103  Harv.  L.  Rev.
1409, 1464–1465 (1990).  But that freedom of choice should 
carry consequences in litigation.  And here, like the faith at 
issue in Hosanna-Tabor, the Catholic Church uses formal 
titles. 

The Court then turns to irrelevant or disputed facts.  The 
Court notes, for example, that a religiously significant term
“rabbi” translates to “teacher,” ante, at 23, suggesting that
Biel’s and Morrissey-Berru’s positions as lay teachers con-
ferred religious titles after all.  But that wordplay unravels
when one imagines the Court’s logic as applied to a math or
gym  or  computer  “teacher”  at  either  school.    The  title 
“teacher” does not convey ministerial status.  Nor does the 
Court  gain  purchase  from  the  disputed  fact  that  Biel  and 
Morrissey-Berru were “regarded as ‘catechists’ ” “ ‘responsi-
ble for the faith formation of the[ir] students.’ ”  Ante, at 4,