The Supremes Define “Minister”

The US Supreme Court heard a case yesterday involving a teacher from a Missouri Synod Lutheran School in Michigan who had been fired.  She claims she was fired because she has narcolepsy.  The church/school say they fired her because she threatened to sue them if they fired her for having narcolepsy and suing is against their religious principles.  Or something like that.  Nina Totenberg explains it all here.

The fascinating thing involves what the justices said about the definition of “minister.”

Chief Justice John Roberts:  (what about a) “teacher who teaches only purely secular subjects, but leads the class in grace before lunch. Is that somebody who would be covered” as a minister?

Roberts then added that “some churches view all its members as ministers.” (Thank you Chief Justice.)

Ruth Bader Ginsberg: “duties at the school did not change from when she’s a contract teacher, and therefore (she is) not a minister”

Sonia Sotomayor:  (regarding the school’s lawyer who said a minister is “anyone who teaches religion“) suggested that this would include even people who were not members of the faith who happened to teach at the school.

Elena Kagan: asked the teacher’s attorney “why this commissioned minister does  not count as a minister,” to which the lawyer responded:  because “she carries out important secular functions in addition to her religious duties.”

To which Roberts said: “The pope is a head of state carrying out secular functions. Is he not a minister?”

I love that even in the highest legal circles, we are confused about who is a minister and who is not.  My vote:  There is a priesthood of all believers.  Black robes are not required.