Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-267_1an2.pdf
Page Number: 15

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

does protect their autonomy with respect to internal man-
agement  decisions  that  are  essential  to  the  institution’s 
central mission.  And a component of this autonomy is the
selection of the individuals who play certain key roles. 

The  “ministerial  exception”  was  based  on  this  insight.
Under this rule, courts are bound to stay out of employment
disputes  involving  those  holding  certain  important  posi-
tions  with  churches  and  other  religious  institutions.    The 
rule appears to have acquired the label “ministerial excep-
tion” because the individuals involved in pioneering cases 
were  described  as  “ministers.”    See  McClure  v.  Salvation 
Army, 460 F. 2d 553, 558–559 (CA5 1972); Rayburn v. Gen-
eral Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 772 F. 2d 1164, 
1168 (CA4 1985).  Not all pre-Hosanna-Tabor decisions ap-
plying the exception involved “ministers” or even members 
of the clergy.  See, e.g., EEOC v. Southwestern Baptist The-
ological  Seminary,  651  F. 2d  277,  283–284  (CA5  1981); 
EEOC  v.  Roman  Catholic  Diocese  of  Raleigh,  N. C.,  213 
F. 3d 795, 800–801 (CA4 2000).  But it is instructive to con-
sider why a church’s independence on matters “of faith and 
doctrine” requires the authority to select, supervise, and if 
necessary, remove a minister without interference by secu-
lar authorities.  Without that power, a wayward minister’s
preaching,  teaching,  and  counseling  could  contradict  the 
church’s  tenets  and  lead  the  congregation  away  from  the 
faith.9    The  ministerial  exception  was  recognized  to  pre-
serve a church’s independent authority in such matters. 

B 

When the so-called ministerial exception finally reached 
this Court in Hosanna-Tabor, we unanimously recognized 

—————— 

9 Cf.  McConnell,  Establishment  and  Disestablishment  at  the  Found-
ing, Part I: Establishment of Religion, 44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2105, 2141
(2003) (politically appointed ministers in colonial Virginia were, in the 
view of the faithful, often “less than zealous in their spiritual responsi-
bilities and less than irreproachable in their personal morals”).