Supreme Court Watch – Who Is a “Minister”?
John Christie • May 26, 2020
A couple of terms ago, a Supreme Court case that attracted attention involved a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
(1918). The Court ultimately never resolved the merits of the case and sent it back for further consideration after concluding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission — that had ruled against the baker — had treated him unfairly by being too hostile to his religious beliefs.
In the present term, another case pending before the Court is attracting considerably less attention but involves a similar issue in a different context; that is, the extent to which the government’s interest in protecting certain rights applies when a religious interest is invoked as a defense. Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru.
In 1998, Agnes Morrissey-Berru began working as a substitute teacher for Our Lady of Guadalupe School, a Catholic parish school in Hermosa Beach, Cal. The following year, the school offered Morrissey-Berru a full-time teaching position, a job she held for 15 years. In 2014, the school refused to renew her contract. She alleged the decision was based on age discrimination in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the school argued the decision related to the budget and her teaching performance.
Morrissey-Berru’s job did not require her to be Catholic, and indeed, she was not a practicing Catholic. At the time she was hired, she had no religious training or certification. The school did not require her to obtain any religious training until 14 years into her tenure, when she took two classes on church history. Her employment benefits were governed by the “Lay Employees Benefit Guide.” The school gave her no religious title. She taught her students reading, writing, science, social studies, and religion. She led her students in saying a Hail Mary prayer once a day and took her students to weekly mass. Her students were required to lead mass periodically; she helped them prepare but did not lead any religious services.
In court, the school asserted that the case must be dismissed without inquiry into the reasons for the termination because the teacher was a “minister” subject to the “ministerial exception” the Supreme Court first recognized in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC (2012). In that case, the Court held that the First Amendment’s prohibition against government interference with the “free exercise” of religion protects the employment relationship between a religious organization and its “ministers,” preventing the government from “requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister.” In the opinion of the Court, the “ministers’ exception” was not limited to “the head of a religious congregation” and in that case applied the exception to an employee who had formally accepted a call to religious service and was serving as a teacher.
In doing so, the Court declined to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a “minister.” Instead, the majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts looked to “all the circumstances of her employment,” identifying four factors as significant.
First, the church had held the teacher “out as a minister, with a role distinct from that of most of its members.” Second, the teacher’s “title as a minister reflected a significant degree of religious training followed by a formal process of commissioning.”
Third, the teacher “held herself out as a minister of the Church by accepting the formal call to religious service.” Fourth, the teacher’s “job duties reflected a role in conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission.” She “taught her students religion four days a week and led them in prayer three times a day.” She not only took her students to chapel services, but also led those services on occasion, “choosing the liturgy, selecting the hymns, and delivering a short message based on verses from the Bible.”
It would appear that none of the first three factors prompting the Court in Hosanna-Tabor to conclude that the teacher in that case was a “minister” would apply to Morissey-Berru. She was not held out as a minister; she did not have a significant degree of religious training and had never accepted a formal call to religious service. Presumably because of this, in its briefing before the Supreme Court, Our Lady of Guadalupe School argued that an employee’s religious functions “alone” should be enough to count him or her as within the ministerial exception and that Morissey-Berru met that test because she exercised “important religious functions” of worship, ritual, and expression. The school claims that it should make no difference whether the “religious functions” are a significant part of the teacher’s job — the exception should apply if they engage in any of these functions for any amount of time.
Abandoning the totality-of-the-circumstance test adopted in Hosanna-Tabor just eight years ago in favor of a test that would apply the exception should any “religious function” be performed would significantly expand the scope of the ministerial exception. Not only would the number of employees who count as “ministers” be expanded, but also the kinds of claims precluded by that classification, including claims of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and unequal pay. Although the case now before the Court again involves a teacher employed by a religious school, in the past religious organizations have asserted the exception against secretaries and receptionists, administrative or support staff, computer technicians and facilities workers among others.
For these reasons, this case deserves more attention than it has received to date. Oral argument before the Court was originally scheduled for April 1 but was delayed until May 11, one of 10 cases argued early in May by telephone conference because of covid-19 concerns. Normally a decision would be expected by the end of June but, because of the argument’s delay, a decision may be delayed as well.
Common Sense for the Eastern Shore
Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.
Apparently, some people think that the GOP’s “big beautiful bill” is a foregone conclusion, and that the struggle over the budget and Trump’s agenda is over and done. Not true. On Sunday night, the bill — given the alternate name “Big Bad Bullsh*t Bill” by the Democratic Women’s Caucus — was voted out of the House Budget Committee. The GOP plan is to pass this legislation in the House before Memorial Day. But that’s not the end of it. As Jessica Craven explained in her Chop Wood Carry Water column: “Remember, we have at least six weeks left in this process. The bill has to: Pass the House, Then head to the Senate where it will likely be rewritten almost completely, Then be passed there, Then be brought back to the House for reconciliation, And then, if the House changes that version at all, Go back to the Senate for another vote.” She adds, “Every step of that process is a place for us to kill it.” The bill is over a thousand pages long, and the American people will not get a chance to read it until it has passed the House. But, thanks to 5Calls , we know it includes:
Let's talk about our Eastern Shore Delegation, the representatives who are supposed to fight for our nine Shore counties in Annapolis, and what they actually got up to this session.
For the first time in recent memory, Virginia Democrats have candidates running in all 100 House of Delegates districts — a milestone party leaders and grassroots organizers say reflects rising momentum as President Donald Trump’s second term continues to galvanize opposition.
The 447th legislative session of the Maryland General Assembly adjourned on April 8. This End of Session Report highlights the work Shore Progress has done to fight for working families and bring real results home to the Shore. Over the 90-day session, lawmakers debated 1,901 bills and passed 878 into law. Shore Progress and members supported legislation that delivers for the Eastern Shore, protecting our environment, expanding access to housing and healthcare, strengthening workers’ rights, and more. Shore Progress Supported Legislation By The Numbers: Over 60 pieces of our backed legislation were passed. Another 15 passed in one Chamber but not the other. Legislation details are below, past the budget section. The 2026 Maryland State Budget How We Got Here: Maryland’s budget problems didn’t start overnight. They began under Governor Larry Hogan. Governor Hogan expanded the state budget yearly but blocked the legislature from moving money around or making common-sense changes. Instead of fixing the structural issues, Hogan used federal covid relief funds to hide the cracks and drained our state’s savings from $5.5 billion to $2.3 billion to boost his image before leaving office. How Trump/Musk Made It Worse: Maryland is facing a new fiscal crisis driven by the Trump–Musk administration, whose trade wars, tariff policies, and deep federal cuts have hit us harder than most, costing the state over 30,000 jobs, shuttering offices, and erasing promised investments. A University of Maryland study estimates Trump’s tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion, and those federal cuts have already added $300 million to our budget deficit. Covid aid gave us a short-term boost and even created a fake surplus under Hogan, but that money is gone, while housing, healthcare, and college prices keep rising. The Trump–Musk White House is only making things worse by slashing funding, gutting services, and eliminating research that Marylanders rely on. How The State Budget Fixes These Issues: This year, Maryland faced a $3 billion budget gap, and the General Assembly fixed it with a smart mix of cuts and fair new revenue, while protecting working families, schools, and health care. The 2025 Budget cuts $1.9 billion ($400 million less than last year) without gutting services people rely on. The General Assembly raised $1.2 billion in fair new revenue, mostly from the wealthiest Marylanders. The Budget ended with a $350 million surplus, plus $2.4 billion saved in the Rainy Day Fund (more than 9% of general fund revenue), which came in $7 million above what the Spending Affordability Committee called for. The budget protects funding for our schools, health care, transit, and public workers. The budget delivers real wins: $800 million more annually for transit and infrastructure, plus $500 million for long-term transportation needs. It invests $9.7 billion in public schools and boosts local education aid by $572.5 million, a 7% increase. If current revenue trends hold, no new taxes will be needed next session. Even better, 94% of Marylanders will see a tax cut or no change, while only the wealthiest 5% will finally pay their fair share. The tax system is smarter now. We’re: Taxing IT and data services like Texas and D.C. do; Raising taxes on cannabis and sports betting, not groceries or medicine; and Letting counties adjust income taxes. The budget also restores critical funding: $122 million for teacher planning $15 million for cancer research $11 million for crime victims $7 million for local business zones, and Continued support for public TV, the arts, and BCCC The budget invests in People with disabilities, with $181 million in services Growing private-sector jobs with $139 million in funding, including $27.5 million for quantum tech, $16 million for the Sunny Day Fund, and $10 million for infrastructure loans. Health care is protected for 1.5 million Marylanders, with $15.6 billion for Medicaid and higher provider pay. Public safety is getting a boost too, with $60 million for victim services, $5.5 million for juvenile services, and $5 million for parole and probation staffing. This budget also tackles climate change with $100 million for clean energy and solar projects, and $200 million in potential ratepayer relief. Public workers get a well-deserved raise, with $200 million in salary increases, including a 1% COLA and ~2.5% raises for union workers. The ultra-wealthy will finally chip in to pay for it: People earning over $750,000 will pay more, Millionaires will pay 6.5%, and Capital gains over $350,000 get a 2% surcharge. Deductions are capped for high earners, but working families can still deduct student loans, medical debt, and donations. This budget is bold, fair, and built to last. That’s why Shore Progress proudly supports it. Click on the arrows below for details in each section.
