Why did it take over 220 years for the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government to render a decision that established a doctrine to prevent unscrupulous employees from controlling the hiring or firing practices of religious organizations? Because the disreputable use of federal law by disgruntled employees, through government overreach, is a relatively new assault on religious organizations.

The Framers of the Constitution could predict only so much in their quest for the freedoms of religious organizations. The framers did give three particular protections in the realm of religion:

1. Article VI – No Religious Test Clause

   [Clause 3 states: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This is the only explicit reference to religion in the original Constitution.]

2. . First Amendment – Establishment Clause

   [Prohibits Congress from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." The framers of the Constitution sought to create a government that would not impose religious belief on its citizens.]

3. First Amendment – Free Exercise Clause

   [This clause ensures the "free exercise" of religion, meaning the government cannot prevent individuals from holding or practicing their religious beliefs. This clause is the most important for true religious freedom. Not just weekly worshiping God. The clause guarantees religious practicality in all aspects of public life. Our courts have affirmed this countless times. A lesser known aspect, but of equal importance, is the compelled speech doctrine. This doctrine protects citizens from being forced by the government to express or endorse anti-religious messages or actions we do not agree with. This has the utmost importance for today's culture wars because state governments are compelling Christians to publically violate many tenets of the Christian religion. The government cannot compel citizens to speak or perform in any way that contradicts our professed religion.]

The ministerial exception is not explicit within the Constitution (1789) or the Bill of Rights (1791). Although, it is rooted in the First Amendment, specifically the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause, which together protect the autonomy of religious institutions in selecting their leaders and teachers without government interference. Through court decisions, the ministerial exception has come into force only recently. It's a legal principle that exempts religious organizations from certain employment discrimination laws regarding their ministerial employees, allowing them to make employment decisions without government interference. It prevents employees of religious organizations from suing their employers for employment discrimination, barring any criminal action by the religious organization.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 permits houses of religious worship to make employment decisions based on religious adherence of employees to religious creeds. The Civil Rights Act was instrumental in the landmark case of McClure v. Salvation Army (1972). The case addresses employment discrimination and established the "ministerial exception" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The case required the court to consider the balance between anti-discrimination laws and the constitutional rights of religious organizations. The court ruled in favor of the Salvation Army, establishing the "ministerial exception," which allows religious organizations to make employment decisions regarding their ministers without government interference. A key element in the McClure case is that it's not binding on all states. That's because it was settled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which only applies to cases in that circuit – the Northern District of Georgia. Later court cases will enhance the trajectory of the "ministerial exception."

The next watershed moment for this particular religious freedom came from The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2012). The court ruled that federal discrimination laws do not apply to religious organizations' selection of religious leaders. In 2012, the political make-up of SCOTUS was barely more-conservative. Yet even the four "liberal" justices ruled in favor of religious organizations' sovereignty in its employment practices. Chief Justice John Roberts penned the decision: "The Establishment Clause prevents the Government from appointing ministers, and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own." Because the plaintiff in the case was a minister within the meaning of the ministerial exception, the First Amendment requires dismissal of her employment discrimination suit against her religious employer.

Why does the Hosanna-Tabor ruling have extreme importance for nationwide religious freedom of employment decisions? Because U.S. Supreme Court rulings are binding on all state courts when they involve federal law or constitutional interpretation. This is rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that federal laws and the Constitution are "the supreme Law of the Land" and that state courts must follow them even if state laws conflict. District Courts are part of the federal judiciary and are independent trial courts, with the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land. SCOTUS can review all court decisions, including district courts and can overturn district court decisions if the decision is deemed unconstitutional.

In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020), SCOTUS reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. Justice Samual Alito wrote the majority opinion: " The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie is at the core of their mission. Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate." The Supreme Court ruled that the Ninth District had erred in applying the four Hosanna-Tabor conditions as absolutes that must be met when invoking the ministerial exception. Those four conditions in Hosanna-Tabor were guidelines but not absolutes.

In Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School (2024), the LGBTQ culture wars entered the religious schooling system and intended to scandalize Catholic moral standards. The Catholic School fired an English and drama teacher because he publicly stated he planned to "marry" his long-time same-sex partner. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the teacher's firing and said: The Catholic Diocese views "its schools as an integral part of its religious mission to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ." And Catholic faith "infuses daily life at the school," the community is "centered in the Roman Catholic faith," all persons must "model and integrate the teachings of Jesus Christ in all areas of conduct," and everyone "should grow spiritually and morally." So says the Fourth Circuit Court. That includes all teaching staff, even an English and drama teacher. I'm sure SCOTUS will concur if the case were to reach them.

The Founders of the U.S.A. were predominantly Christians of the New Testament. Maybe that's why the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the people freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Those Founders would roll over in their graves if they knew how fragile religious freedoms would be today without their First Amendment.