Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-267_1an2.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

2 

OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL v.
MORRISSEY-BERRU 
THOMAS, J., concurring 

to defer to religious organizations’ good-faith claims that a
certain employee’s position is “ministerial.”  See Hosanna-
Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 
565 U. S. 171, 196 (2012) (THOMAS, J., concurring).

This deference is necessary because, as the Court rightly 
observes, judges lack the requisite “understanding and ap-
preciation of the role played by every person who performs 
a particular role in every religious tradition.”  Ante, at 22. 
What qualifies as “ministerial” is an inherently theological
question,  and  thus  one  that  cannot  be  resolved  by  civil 
courts through legal analysis.  See Hosanna-Tabor, supra, 
at 197 (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also Memorial and Re-
monstrance  Against  Religious  Assessments,  in  Selected 
Writings  of  James  Madison  21,  24  (R.  Ketcham  ed.  2006) 
(the idea that a “Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of
Religious truth” is “an arrogant pretension” that has been 
“falsified”).  Contrary to the dissent’s claim, judges do not 
shirk their judicial duty or provide a mere “rubber stamp” 
when they defer to a religious organization’s sincere beliefs. 
Post,  at  9  (opinion  of SOTOMAYOR,  J.).  Rather,  they  heed
the First Amendment, which “commands civil courts to de-
cide  [legal]  disputes  without  resolving  underlying  contro-
versies over religious doctrine.”  Presbyterian Church in U. 
S.  v.  Mary  Elizabeth  Blue  Hull  Memorial  Presbyterian 
Church, 393 U. S. 440, 449 (1969); see also ante, at 16, n. 10. 
Moreover, because the application of the exception turns
on religious beliefs, the duties that a given religious organ-
ization will deem “ministerial” are sure to vary.  Although
the  functions  recognized  as  ministerial  by  the  Lutheran
school  in  Hosanna-Tabor  are  similar  to  those  considered 
ministerial by the Catholic schools here, such overlap will 
not  necessarily  exist  with  other  religious  organizations,
particularly those “outside of the ‘mainstream.’ ”  565 U. S., 
at 197 (THOMAS, J., concurring).  To avoid disadvantaging 
these minority faiths and interfering in “a religious group’s