Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-267_1an2.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

religious training followed by a formal process of commis-
sioning.”  Id., at 191. 

Third,  “Perich  held  herself  out  as  a  minister  of  the 
Church by accepting the formal call to religious service, ac-
cording to its terms,” and by claiming certain tax benefits. 
Id., at 191–192. 

Fourth, “Perich’s job duties reflected a role in conveying 
the Church’s message and carrying out its mission.”  Id., at 
192.  The church charged her with “ ‘lead[ing] others toward
Christian maturity’ ” and “ ‘teach[ing] faithfully the Word of 
God, the Sacred Scriptures, in its truth and purity and as 
set forth in all the symbolical books of the Evangelical Lu-
theran Church.’ ”  Ibid.  Although Perich also provided in-
struction in secular subjects, she taught religion four days
a week, led her students in prayer three times a day, took 
her students to a chapel service once a week, and partici-
pated in the liturgy twice a year.  “As a source of religious
instruction,” we explained, “Perich performed an important
role in transmitting the Lutheran faith to the next genera-
tion.”  Ibid. 

The case featured two concurrences.  In the first, JUSTICE 
THOMAS stressed that courts should “defer to a religious or-
ganization’s  good-faith  understanding  of  who  qualifies  as 
its minister.”  Id., at 196.  That is so, JUSTICE THOMAS ex-
plained, because “[a] religious organization’s right to choose
its  ministers  would  be  hollow  . . .  if  secular  courts  could 
second-guess” the group’s sincere application of its religious 
tenets.  Id., at 197. 

The  second  concurrence  argued  that  application  of  the 
“ministerial  exception”  should  “focus  on  the  function  per-
formed  by  persons  who  work  for  religious  bodies”  rather
than labels or designations that may vary across faiths.  Id., 
at 198 (opinion of ALITO, J., joined by KAGAN, J.).  This opin-
ion viewed the title of “minister” as “relevant” but “neither 
necessary nor sufficient.”  Id., at 202.  It noted that “most 
faiths  do  not  employ  the  term  ‘minister’ ”  and  that  some