Narrative Pluralism and Doctrinal Incoherence in Hosanna-Tabor

Frederick Mark Gedicks

Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School

September 30, 2012

64 Mercer Law Review 405 (2013)

In Hosanna-Tabor Church and School v. EEOC, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that the Religion Clauses require a “ministerial exception” to federal antidiscrimination laws, holding that religious congregations have a broad and categorical immunity against government interference in ministerial employment decisions.

Hosanna-Tabor is filled with ironies. The case is as much about unjustified discrimination and administrative inconsistency as religious liberty. The Court’s endorsement of the exception as a feature of church autonomy overlooks that churches subvert autonomy as often as they protect it. The exception described by the Court is so broad, absolute, and inflexible that it is likely to be carved up with exceptions and limitations. And finally, the Court goes to this trouble to protect a conception and practice of religion that are quickly passing from the scene.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 31

Keywords: Employment Division v. Smith, Establishment Clause structure, free exercise rights, Hosanna-Tabor, ministerial exception, religious exemptions, spirituality

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: September 30, 2012 ; Last revised: June 9, 2015

Suggested Citation

Gedicks, Frederick Mark, Narrative Pluralism and Doctrinal Incoherence in Hosanna-Tabor (September 30, 2012). 64 Mercer Law Review 405 (2013). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2154528

Contact Information

Frederick Mark Gedicks (Contact Author)
Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School ( email )
504 JRCB
Provo, UT 84602-8000
United States
801-422-4533 (Phone)
801-422-0391 (Fax)

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,382
Downloads: 165
Download Rank: 143,222