Nos. 19-267 & 19-348

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

On Writs Of CertiOrari tO the United states COUrt Of appeals fOr the ninth CirCUit

BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE SENATOR MIKE LEE, REPRESENTATIVE DOUG COLLINS, AND 27

OTHER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

294011

OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL,

Petitioner,

v.

AGNES MORRISSEY-BERRU,

Respondent.

ST. JAMES SCHOOL,

Petitioner,

v.

DARRYL BIEL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KRISTEN BEIL,

Respondent.

Jesse PanuccIo

Counsel of RecordWIllIam Bloom

BoIes schIller Flexner llP1401 New York Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20005(202) 237-2727jpanuccio@bsfllp.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

I. TheFirstAmendmentProtectsandPromotesReligious Diversity, and CourtsMust

ApplyItinaNondiscriminatoryManner . . . . . .4

A. TheReligionClausesProtectReligiousPluralism, andCongressHasLong

SoughttoPromoteThisValue. . . . . . . . . . . .4

B. TheNinthCircuit’sFormulaicApproachto theMinisterial ExceptionDoesNot Comport withHosanna-Tabor and Fails to Protect and Promote

ReligiousDiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

II. ReligiousInstructionIsOftenaFunctionattheVeryCoreofaReligion’sInternalAffairs,and theMinisterialExceptionProtects

theSelectionofReligiousTeachers . . . . . . . . . .18

ii

Table of Contents

Page

A. TheTeachingofReligiousTenetsLies attheHeartofReligion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

B. The Ninth Ci rcu it ImproperlyMinimizedtheImportanceofReligious

Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

C. As Teachers ofReligion, BothBielandMorrissey-BerruFellwithin the

MinisterialException . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1a

iii

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Alicea–Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 320F.3d698(7thCir.2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12, 15

Biel v. St. James School, 926F.3d1238(9thCir.2019). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

Bryce v. Episcopal Church, 289F.3d648(10thCir.2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Cannata v. Catholic Diocese of Austin, 700F.3d169(5thCir.2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Conlon v. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 777F.3d829(6thCir.2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos,

483 U.S. 327 (1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

E.E.O.C. v. Catholic University, 83F.3d455(D.C.Cir.1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

E.E.O.C. v. Roman Catholic Diocese, 213F.3d795(4thCir.2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12, 15

iv

Cited Authorities

Page

Fratello v. Archdiocese of N.Y., 863F.3d190(2dCir.2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-12, 15, 16

Gaylor v. Mnuchin, 919F.3d420(7thCir.2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc., 882F.3d655(7thCir.2018). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Hollins v. Methodist Healthcare, Inc., 474F.3d223(6thCir.2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C.,

565 U.S. 171 (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

Korte v. Sebelius, 735F.3d654(7thCir.2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6, 15

McClure v. Salvation Army, 460F.2d553(5thCir.1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Morrissey-Berru v. Our Lady of Guadalupe School,

769F.App’x460(9thCir.2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

v

Cited Authorities

Page

Morrissey-Berru v. Our Lady of Guadalupe School,

No. 216CV09353SVWAFM, 2017 WL 6527336 (C.D.Cal.Sept.27,2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 17, 28

Rweyemamu v. Cote, 520F.3d198(2dCir.2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Scharon v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Presbyterian Hospitals,

929F.2d360(8thCir.1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Schleicher v. Salvation Army, 518F.3d472(7thCir.2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Shaliehsabou v. Hebrew Home of Greater Wash., Inc.,

363F.3d299(4thCir.2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12, 15

Sterlinski v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 934F.3d568(7thCir.2019). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer,

582 U.S. ---, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS

U.S.Const.,amend.I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

U.S.Const.,amend.XIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9

vi

Cited Authorities

Page

STATUTES AND RULES

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

8 U.S.C. § 1182(g)(2)(C). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

10 U.S.C. § 774(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

26 U.S.C. § 107 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

27 U.S.C. § 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

42U.S.C.§12113(d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb–2000bb-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

42U.S.C.§§2000e-2(a)–(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

50 U.S.C. § 3806(g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Pub. L. No. 100-180, 101 Stat. 1019 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Pub. L. No. 76-783, 54 Stat. 885 (1940) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

vii

Cited Authorities

Page

Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Sup. Ct. R. 37.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

OTHER AUTHORITIES

2 Journals Of The Continental Congress (1905). . . . . . .7

ActofFeb.24,1864,ch.13,13Stat.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Alexis deTocqueville,Democracy in America (ArthurGoldhammertrans.,2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

AsmaAfsaruddin,Muslim Views on Education: Parameters, Purview, and Possibilities,

44J.Cath.LegalStud.143(2005) . . . . . . . . 22, 25, 26

BettyAnnMcNeil,Historical Perspectives on Elizabeth Seton and Education: School is My

Chief Business,9J.Cath.Educ.284(2006) . . . . . . .21

Black’s Law Dictionary(11thed.2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Br. For Senators Steve Daines, Tim Scott,JohnKennedy, andMarshaBlackburn andRepresentative GregGianforte asAmicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Espinoza

v. Mont. Dept. of Revenue, No. 18-1195. . . . . . . . . . .20

Carl J.Richard,The Founders and the Bible (2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

viii

Cited Authorities

Page

ChristopherC.Lund, In Defense of the Ministerial Exception, 90 N.C. L. Rev. 1 (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 17

DanielWebster,OrationBeforethePilgrimSociety atPlymouth,Massachusetts(Dec.22,1820) . . . . . . .5

Eleanor Nesbitt , Sikhism: A Very Shor t Introduction (2ded.2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Faith and the Founders of the American Republic (Daniel L. Dreisbach & Mark

DavidHalleds.,2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

GilGraff,“And You Shall Teach Them Diligently”: A Concise History of Jewish Education in

the United States 1776–2000 (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Gurbachan Singh, The Sikhs: Faith, Philosophy & Folk (1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

H.R. Rep. No. 88-914 (1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Kerry M. Ol itzky & Rona ld H. Isaacs , A Glossary of Jewish Life (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

MargeryPostAbbotetal.,Historical Dictionary of the Friends (Quakers)(2ded.2012) . . . . . . . . . . .16

Melton’s Encyclopedia of American Religions (J.GordonMeltoned.,9thed.2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

ix

Cited Authorities

Page

Michael S. Paulsen,A RFRA Runs Through It: Religious Freedom and the U.S. Code,

56 Mont. L. Rev. 249 (1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

MichaelW.McConnell,Reflections on Hosanna- Tabor,35Harv.J.L.&Pub.Pol’y821(2012) . . . . . . .9

Michael W. McConnel l , Should Congress Pass Legislation Restoring the Broader Interpretation of Free Exercise of Religion?,

15Harv.J.L.&Pub.Pol’y181(1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Our Sacred Honor: Words of Advice from the Founders in Stories, Letters, Poems, and

Speeches(WilliamJ.Bennetted.,1997) . . . . . . . . . .25

Religious Landscape Study, Pew Research Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Ronald L. Eisenberg, The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Stephen J. Stein, Religion/Religions in the United States: Changing Perspectives and

Prospects,75Ind.L.J.37(2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies (Pashaura Singh&LouisE.Fenecheds.,2014) . . . . . . . . . .26, 27

x

Cited Authorities

Page

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Hearing on S. 2969 Before the S. Comm. on the

Judiciary,102ndCong.,2dSess.(1992) . . . . . . . . . . .5

Timothy Walch, Parish School: American Ca th oli c Par ochi a l Edu c a ti o n f r o m

Colonial Times to the Present (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . .20

WilliamE.Berrett,Church Education System (CES) in Encyclopedia of Mormonism

(DanielH.Ludlowed.,1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-23

YvonneY.Haddad&JaneI.Smith,Introduction: The Challenge of Islamic Education in North America, inYvonneY.Haddad et al.,

Educating the Muslims of America (2009) . . . . . . .22

1

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE1

AmiciSenatorMikeLeeandRepresentativeDougCollins, joined by 27 otherMembers of Congress,represent Americans who belong to a wide arrayof religions and faith traditions.Amici’s role underArticleIoftheConstitution inenacting lawsonbehalfof these constituents gives them a significant interestin ensuring that federal statutes arenot enforced in amanner that limits the religious freedomguaranteedby theConstitution.Moreover, as representatives of areligiously diverse constituency,amici are in a uniquepositiontoexplainthe importanceofensuringthattheFirstAmendment’s“ministerialexception”isappliedinanondiscriminatorymanner.

A complete list ofAmiciMembers is found in theAppendixtothisbrief.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

In Hosanna-Tabor, thisCourt recognized that theFirstAmendmentprotects“theinterestofreligiousgroupsinchoosingwhowill…teachtheirfaith.”Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and Sch. v. E.E.O.C., 565 U.S.171,196(2012).Thesecases—dealingwithreligiousschools’dismissalsofteachersoftheirreligion—squarely

1. PursuanttoSupremeCourtRule37.6,amicicertifythatnocounselforapartyauthoredthisbriefinwholeorinpart.Noperson or entity other than theamici curiae or their counselmadeamonetarycontributionintendedtofundthepreparationofthisbrief.Petitionershavefiledablanketconsenttothefilingofamicusbriefs.Respondentshaveconsentedtothefilingofthisamicusbrief.

2

implicatethisinterest.Theformerreligionteacherssued,allegingviolationsoffederalworkplaceanti-discriminationstatutes.Thosestatutes,passedbyCongresstoaddresscriticallyimportantissues,shouldbe—andare—robustlyenforcedacrosstheAmericanemploymentlandscape.Buttheirapplicationinthisnarrowcontextwouldresultinthefederalgovernmenttellingreligiousgroups“whowill…teachtheirfaith.”AndthisCongresscannotdoundertheFirstAmendment’sReligionClauses.

Oneofournation’sgreateststrengthsisthediversityof itspopulace.Thatdiversityextendstoreligion,with“virtuallyeveryreligionintheworld…representedinthepopulationoftheUnitedStates.”Id.at198(Alito,J.,concurring).ThevastandvariedreligiouspopulationoftheUnitedStatesisfosteredandsustainedbyournationalcommitments to non-interference with the internalaffairs of religion andnon-favoritismof anyparticularreligiousbelieforpractice—commitmentsenshrinedintheFirstAmendment’sReligionClausesandpromotedbyCongressinlegislativedecisionsthroughoutAmericanhistory.ThisCourt’s unanimous decision inHosanna-Taborreaffirmedtheimportanceofrespectforreligiouspluralismbyexplicitlyrejectinga“rigidformula”fortheministerialexception.Id.at190.Instead,affirmingtheuniformpractice of theCourts ofAppeals, thisCourtadoptedaholisticapproach,lookingpastlabelsto“allthecircumstances”ofemployment.Id.ThisapproachavoidsforcingreligionstochoosebetweenlosingtheprotectionsoftheFirstAmendmentorconformingtheirpracticesandbeliefstothestiltedconfinesofmulti-factorjudicialtest.

In the two cases at issue here, however, the Ninth Circuit has headed in precisely the opposite direction,

3

readingHosanna-Taborasestablishingastrict,four-parttestthatfocusesmainlyontitleandexternalperceptionsofareligion’slabelingconventionsandpractices.Inshort,theNinthCircuitturnedtheministerialexception’snameintoitstest.Ifpermittedtostand,thisdegradationoftheministerialexceptionwilldisadvantagereligionasawholeandreligiousminoritiesinparticular.

TheNinthCircuit’sanalysisofthereligiousfunctionatissueinthiscase—theteachingofreligion—isparticularlytroubling.Theteachingofreligiousprinciplesandcustomsisattheverycoreoffaithformany,ifnotmost,religions.Yetinthetwoopinionsunderreview,theNinthCircuitbarelyaddressedtheimportanceofthisaspectofreligion.Quitetothecontrary,thecourtminimizedthesignificanceof“teachingfromabook”—astrikingpositiongiventhatmostoftheworld’smajorreligionsconsidertheteachingsfoundinholybookstobetheveryessenceoftheirfaith.Reflectingthisdismissalof the importanceofreligiousteaching,theNinthCircuitheldthatareligion’sgrantingan employee “significant religious responsibilities as ateacher”isneversufficient,inandofitself,totriggertheFirstAmendment’sprotections.

In their concurrence in Hosanna-Tabor,JusticesAlitoandKaganstatedthatthe“FirstAmendmentprotectsthefreedomofreligiousgroupstoengageincertainkeyreligious activities, including… the critical process ofcommunicating the faith.…The ‘ministerial’ exception… should apply to any ‘employee’who… serves as amessengerorteacherofitsfaith.”Id. at 199. This Court shouldtaketheopportunitytoadoptthatprincipleasaholdingoftheCourtandreversethejudgmentsbelow.

4

ARGUMENT

I. The First Amendment Protects and Promotes Religious Diversity, and Courts Must Apply It in a Nondiscriminatory Manner.

In Hosanna-Tabor,thisCourtheld—unanimously—that theFirst Amendment enshrines into our law a“ministerial exception” to protect the autonomy of areligiontodetermine“whocanactasitsministers”and“personifyitsbeliefs.”565U.S.at185,188.TheCourtthenappliedtheexceptiontoateacherinaschooloperatedbytheLutheranChurch–MissouriSynod.Id.at177.Itwouldbeamistake,however,tomisinterprettheapplicationoftheministerialexceptiontotheLutheranChurchwiththefullscopeoftheministerialexception.Instead,thisCourtexplicitlystatedthatitsdecisioninHosanna-Tabor—its “firstcase involvingtheministerialexception”—shouldnotbeinterpretedas“arigidformulafordecidingwhenanemployeequalifiesasaminister.”Id.at190.Andrightlyso. The analysis of a single teacher at a single schooloperatedbyasinglereligiousdenominationcouldnevercompletelydefineanexceptionthatprotectstheincrediblemultitudeofreligionsrepresentedintheUnitedStates.AndyetthatisexactlywhattheNinthCircuithasdone,turningthefactsofasinglecaseintothesumtotaloftheFirstAmendment’sprotections.

A. The Religion Clauses Protect Religious Pluralism, and Congress Has Long Sought to Promote This Value.

At the forefrontofAmerican liberty is theconceptthatall individuals shouldbe,andare, free topractice

5

theirreligion.EarlycolonistslookedtotheNewWorldasaplacewheretheycouldworshipastheysawfitandselectreligiousleadersoftheirownchoosing.See id. at 182–184. AsDanielWebster,oneof thegreatestoratorsever toserve inCongress, explained in his famousPlymouthOration:

Of themotives which inf luenced the firstsettlerstoavoluntaryexile, inducedthemtorelinquishtheirnativecountry,andtoseekanasyluminthisthenunexploredwilderness,thefirstandprincipal,nodoubt,were connectedwith religion.They sought to enjoy a higherdegree of religious freedom, andwhat theyesteemed a purer form of religiousworship,thanwasallowed…intheOldWorld.Theloveof religious liberty is a stronger sentiment,whenfullyexcited,thananattachmenttocivilorpolitical freedom.That freedomwhichtheconsciencedemands,andwhichmenfeelboundby theirhopeof salvation tocontend for, canhardlyfailtobeattained.

DanielWebster,OrationBefore thePilgrimSociety atPlymouth,Massachusetts (Dec. 22, 1820);see also The Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Hearing on S. 2969 Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary,102ndCong.,2dSess., at 1 (1992) (Sen.EdwardKennedy: “The bravepioneerswhofoundedAmericacamehereinlargeparttoescapereligioustyrannyandtopracticetheirfaithsfreefromgovernmentinterference.”).2

2. See also AlexisdeTocqueville,Democracy in America 37(ArthurGoldhammertrans.,2004)(thePuritans“bravedthe

6

Fromthis longingforreligiousliberty,andagainstthebackdropofcountervailingsystemsfromwhichthecolonistsfled,arosetheEstablishmentandFreeExerciseClausesoftheFirstAmendment.See U.S.Const.amend.I.One importantway inwhich theseReligionClausesprotectreligiousfreedomisbyensuringequalityamongreligions.“TheclearestcommandoftheEstablishmentClause is that one religious denomination cannot beofficially preferred over another,”Larson v. Valente, 456U.S. 228, 244 (1982), and “[t]he Free ExerciseClause ‘protect[s] religious observers against unequaltreatment.’”Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer,582U.S.---,137S.Ct.2012,2019(2017)(quotingChurch of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533, 542 (1993)).

TheFounders’commitmenttoreligiousfreedomandequalityplantedaseedthathasbornemuchfruit.Neitheraccidentofgeographynorquirkofdemographics,therichreligioustapestryoftheUnitedStatesistheproductofourofferingasafehavenforthosewhoseektoworshipinthemannertheirconsciencesdictate.Throughoutitshistory, theUnitedStates has remained amagnet forthose seeking religious freedom.See Stephen J. Stein, Religion/Religions in the United States: Changing Perspectives and Prospects,75Ind.L.J.37,41–52(2000)(cataloguing efforts “to describe and explain religiouspluralism as it has evolved historically inAmerica”).AllofthishasmadetheUnitedStatesoneofthemost

inevitablemiseries of exile because theywished to ensure thevictoryofan idea.…Persecutedbythegovernmentofthemothercountryandoffendedbytheroutinewaysofasocietyatoddswiththerigorousprinciplesbywhichtheylived,thePuritanssoughtalandsobarbarousandsoneglectedthattheymightstillbeallowedtolivethereastheywishedandpraytoGodinliberty.”).

7

religiously pluralistic and tolerant societies in history:“virtuallyeveryreligion in theworld is represented inthe population of theUnitedStates.”Hosanna-Tabor, 565U.S.at198(Alito,J.,concurring).Indeed,Americatodayishometomorethan2,000religiousdenominations.See Melton’s Encyclopedia of American Religions 1 (J. GordonMeltoned.,9thed.2017).Thereligiousbeliefs,practices,andinternalstructures(orlackthereof)ofthesereligions are as numerous as the religions themselves.Somereligionsareledbyordainedministers,somearenot.Somereligionshavecanonicalandsacredtexts,somedonot.Somereligionsseektoproselytize,somedonot.Somereligionsrequireformaltrainingfortheirministers,somedonot.

MembersofCongressrepresentconstituentsfromallofthesefaithtraditionsandreligiousaffiliations.Consistentwiththeiroathsofoffice,andtheirrepresentationoftheseconstituents,MembersofCongresshaveadutytosupportand defend theConstitution’s protection of religiousfreedom and pluralism. Accordingly, Congress hashistoricallyandrepeatedlysoughttopromotereligiousfreedom and to avoid legislating inways that intrudeupon religious autonomy or treat religions unequally.See, e.g., MichaelW.McConnell,Should Congress Pass Legislation Restoring the Broader Interpretation of Free Exercise of Religion?, 15Harv. J.L.&Pub.Pol’y181, 186 (1992) (noting that theContinentalCongress“created an exemption frommilitary conscription foradherents to faiths that forbadeparticipation inwar”)(citingResolutionofJuly18,1775,reprintedin2Journals Of The Continental Congressat187,189(1905));ActofFeb.24,1864,ch.13,§17,13Stat.6(providingareligiousexemptionfromtheConscriptionActof1863);27U.S.C.§16(1925)(exceptiontoProhibitionforuseofsacramental

8

wine);Pub.L.No.76-783,54Stat.885(1940)(codifiedasamendedin50U.S.C.§3806(g))(providinganexemptionto“ministersofreligion”frommilitaryservice);Gaylor v. Mnuchin, 919F.3d 420, 431 (7thCir. 2019) (findingthatCongressbroadenedtheparsonagetaxexemption,26U.S.C.§107,in1954toavoid“discriminationagainstcertainreligionsinfavorofothers”);Pub.L.No.96-212,94Stat.102(1980)(codifiedasamendedin8U.S.C.§1101(a)(42)(A))(defining“refugee”toincludeanyoneunableorunwillingtoreturntohisorherhomecountry“becauseofpersecutionorawell-founded fearofpersecutiononaccount of…religion”);Pub.L.No. 100-180, 101Stat.1019(1987)(codifiedin10U.S.C.§774(a))(providinganexemptiontoallowmembersofthearmedforcestowear“religiousapparel”);Pub.L.No.104-208,110Stat.3009(1996)(codifiedin8U.S.C.§1182(g)(2)(C))(providinganexceptiontovaccinationrequirementsfortheadmissionofalienswhere“suchavaccinationwouldbecontrarytothealien’sreligiousbeliefs”).Indeed,toensurethatfederalstatutesrespectreligiousfreedom,Congress—byanearunanimousvotein1993—passedtheReligiousFreedomRestoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb–2000bb-4, which reaches“‘acrossallotherfederalstatutes…modifyingtheirreach.’”Korte v. Sebelius,735F.3d654,673(7thCir.2013)(quotingMichaelS.Paulsen,A RFRA Runs Through It: Religious Freedom and the U.S. Code, 56 Mont. L. Rev. 249, 253 (1995)).Moreover, anti-discriminationstatutesthemselvesseektocombatreligiousinequality:Congresshasincludedreligioninitslegislationbanningdiscriminationbasedon certain characteristics.See 42 U.S.C.§§2000e-2(a)–(d).3

3. Congresshaslongconsideredhowtofashionbroadanti-discriminationprotectionsthatalsorespectreligiousautonomy.For example, following the ratification of the Fourteenth

9

Of course, “in our increasingly complex society”legislatingisanimperfectscienceandsometimesrequirespaintingwithabroadbrush,Mistretta v. United States, 488U. S. 361, 372 (1989), especially whenCongressis attempting to tackle a problem as important andmultifaceted as discrimination. Accordingly, federalstatutes of general applicabilitymight, as applied incertainnarrowcircumstances,intrudeupontheinternalaffairsofreligion.ThatiswhyfederalcourtshavelongrecognizedthattheReligionClausessometimesrequireaministerialexceptiontotheapplicationofsomefederalstatutes. See Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 185–88 (noting thattheCourt’sdecisionshadlong“confirm[ed]thatitisimpermissibleforthegovernmenttocontradictachurch’s

Amendment, during the debates over the passage of theCivilRightsActof1875,Congressrejectedtheideaofapplyingthatimportant anti-discrimination law to churches, with “manyof the senators express[ing] their opposition in terms of theFirstAmendmentReligionClauses.”MichaelW.McConnell,Reflections on Hosanna-Tabor,35Harv.J.L.&Pub.Pol’y821,831(2012).Insubsequentanti-discriminationstatutes,Congresshascontinuedtodebateandincludeexemptionsforreligion.See, e.g., 42U.S.C.§12113(d)(providingthatareligiousorganizationmay“giv[e]preferenceinemploymenttoindividualsofaparticularreligion” and allowing religious organizations to “require thatallapplicantsandemployeesconformto thereligioustenetsofsuch organization”).As initially drafted,TitleVII completelyexcluded“religiouscorporations”fromitspurview.See H.R. Rep. No. 88-914, at 12 (1963), reprinted in 1964U.S.C.C.A.N. 2391,2402.Thisexceptionwasreplacedbyanarrowercarve-out forreligiousgroupsfromclaimsofreligiousdiscriminationlodgedbyemployeesdoingworkconnectedwithreligiousactivities.See Pub. L.No.88-352,78Stat.241,255(1964)(codifiedasamendedat42U.S.C.§2000e-1).Followingrevisionsin1972,TitleVIIexemptsreligiousorganizationsfromanyclaimofreligiousdiscrimination.See 42 U.S.C. §2000e-1.

10

determinationofwhocanactasitsministers,”andthatthe “Courts ofAppeals haveuniformly recognized theexistence of a ‘ministerial exception’… that precludesapplicationof[employmentdiscrimination]legislationtoclaimsconcerningtheemploymentrelationshipbetweenreligiousinstitutionsanditsministers”).

Congress enacted the anti-discrimination laws atissue here to accomplish an “undoubtedly important”goal:prohibitinganderadicatinginvidiousdiscriminationacrosstheAmericanemploymentlandscape.Id. at 196. ButalsoimportanttoCongressistheAmericantradition,and constitutional guarantee, of noninterferencewithreligion—ofaffirming“the interestof religiousgroupsinchoosingwhowill…teachtheirfaith.”Id. The narrow butcompellingcircumstancespresentedbythesecases—religious schools’ relationshipwith their teachers of religion—implicatethelattervirtueandrequirereversaloftheNinthCircuit.

B. The Ninth Circuit’s Formulaic Approach to the Ministerial Exception Does Not Comport with Hosanna-Tabor and Fails to Protect and Promote Religious Diversity.

In Hosanna-Tabor, this Court aff irmed theconstitutional command that the “Courts of Appealshave uniformly recognized” formany years—namely,that the“‘ministerial exception,’grounded in theFirstAmendment,…precludes application of [employmentdiscrimination] legislation to claims concerning theemploymentrelationshipbetweenareligiousinstitutionanditsministers.”565U.S.at188.TheCourtexplainedthattheexceptionisrootedinboth“theFreeExercise

11

Clause,whichprotectsareligiousgroup’srighttoshapeitsownfaithandmissionthroughitsappointments,”and“theEstablishmentClause,whichprohibitsgovernmentinvolvementin…ecclesiasticaldecisions”about“whichindividualswillministertothefaithful.”Id. at 188–89.

The Court in Hosanna-Tabor explicitly eschewed“adopt[ion] of a rigid formula for deciding when anemployee qualif ies” for the ministerial exception,choosing instead to look at “all the circumstances” oftherelationshipatissue.Id.at190.Sucharigidformulacouldneveraccountfor,orsufficientlyprotect,thesheervarietyofreligiouspractices,beliefs,andstructures inAmerica—apointthatJusticesThomas,Alito,andKaganallmadeinconcurringopinions.See id.at197(Thomas,J.,concurring)(“abright-linetestormulti-factoranalysis[would]riskdisadvantagingthosereligiousgroupswhosebeliefs, practices, andmembership are outside of the‘Mainstream’ orunpalatable to some.”); id. at 198, 206 (Alito, J., concurring) (noting that religious titles andpractices vary and therefore theministerial exceptionmust turn on an employee’s “functional status as thetypeofemployeethatachurchmustbefreetoappointordismissinordertoexercise…religiousliberty”).

FollowingHosanna-Tabor,mostCourtsofAppealshave correctly read it as calling for an individualizedassessment of the substance of a particular person’sfunctions in a religious institution, rather than apronouncement of an unforgiving four-part test.See Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day Sch., Inc.,882F.3d655, 661 (7thCir. 2018) (“[E]ven referring to themas‘factors’denotes thekindof formulaic inquiry that theSupremeCourthasrejected.”);Fratello v. Archdiocese of

12

N.Y.,863F.3d190,202,204–05(2dCir.2017)(“Hosanna-Tabor instructs only as to what wemight take into accountasrelevant…. [I]tneither limits the inquirytothose considerations nor requires their application inevery case.”);Cannata v. Catholic Diocese of Austin, 700F.3d169,176(5thCir.2012)(“Anyattempttocalcifytheparticular considerations thatmotivated theCourtin Hosanna-Tabor into a ‘rigid formula’would not beappropriate.”). These post-Hosanna-Tabor decisionscontinue the pre-Hosanna-Taborministerial-exceptionjurisprudencethatHosanna-Tabor endorsed.See 565 U.S. at188&n.2; Rweyemamu v. Cote,520F.3d198,204–209(2dCir.2008);Shaliehsabou v. Hebrew Home of Greater Wash., Inc.,363F.3d299,308–09(4thCir.2004);E.E.O.C. v. Roman Catholic Diocese,213F.3d795,800–801(4thCir.2000);Hollins v. Methodist Healthcare, Inc.,474F.3d223,225–227(6thCir.2007);Schleicher v. Salvation Army, 518F.3d472,475 (7thCir.2008);Alicea–Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 320F.3d 698, 703–04 (7thCir.2003);Scharon v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Presbyterian Hospitals,929F.2d360,362–363(8thCir.1991);Bryce v. Episcopal Church, 289F.3d 648, 655–657 (10thCir.2002);E.E.O.C. v. Catholic Univ.,83F.3d455,460–463(D.C. Cir. 1996).

TheNinthCircuit’s decisionshere areglaring andproblematic outliers.Rather than engage in a holisticanalysisofwhether,under “all the circumstances,” theemploymentactionsatissueinvolved“religiousgroups…choosingwhowillpreachtheirbeliefs,teachtheirfaith,and carry out theirmission,” 565U.S. at 190, 196, theNinthCircuit insteadconsideredwhetherthepracticesofSt.JamesCatholicSchoolandOurLadyofGuadalupeSchool conform to the tenets of theLutheranChurch–

13

MissouriSynod.See Biel v. St. James Sch.,926F.3d1238,1243 (9thCir. 2019) (Nelson,J.,dissenting fromdenialof rehearing en banc) (“The panelmajoritymistakes Hosanna-Tabortocreatearesemblance-to-Perichtest.”);Sterlinski v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago,934F.3d568,570 (7thCir. 2019) (“[TheNinthCircuit’s] approach…askshowmuchlikePerichagivenplaintiffis,ratherthanwhethertheemployeeservedareligiousfunction.”).SuchatestsimplydoesnotprotectthereligiousdiversityoftheUnitedStates.

AttheheartoftheNinthCircuit’smisapplicationofHosanna-Tabor is themisconception that the decisioninstructedcourtstoconsider“fourmajorconsiderations”and only those considerations.Biel, 911F.3d at 607; Morrissey-Berru v. Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch., 769 F.App’x 460, 460–61 (9thCir. 2019) (relying onBiel’s reasoning).Threeofthoseconsiderationsrevolvearoundthe employee’s title—“(1)whether the employer h[olds]theemployeeoutasaminister,(2)whethertheemployee’stitlereflect[s]ministerialsubstanceandtraining,[and](3)whethertheemployeeh[olds]herselfoutasaminister.”Biel, 911 F.3d at 607. Only one consideration—“theemployee’s job duties,” id.—is unrelated to title and,accordingtotheNinthCircuit,evenwhenanemployee’sdutiesreflect“significantreligiousresponsibilities,”shecannotfallwithinministerialexceptionunlessoneofthetitle-based considerations is satisfied.See Morrissey-Berru,769F.App’xat461.

TheNinthCircuit’s application of theministerialexception turns the doctrine’s name into its test.AndthisispreciselywhatJusticesAlitoandKaganwarnedagainst in their Hosanna-Tabor concurrence.While

14

the term “ministerial exception” serves as a usefulshorthand to describe theReligionClauses’ respectfor religious autonomy in certain internal affairs, “itwouldbeamistakeiftheterm‘minister’ortheconceptof ordinationwere viewed as central to the importantissue of religious autonomy that is presented in caseslikethisone.”Hosanna-Tabor,565U.S.at198(Alito,J.,concurring)(“Theterm‘minister’ iscommonlyusedbymanyProtestantdenominationstorefertomembersoftheirclergy,butthetermisrarelyifeverusedinthiswaybyCatholics,Jews,Muslims,Hindus,orBuddhists.”);see also ChristopherC.Lund, In Defense of the Ministerial Exception,90N.C.L.Rev.1,66–67(2011)(“Thescopeof theministerial exception should be determined bythe breadth of its underlying rationales, not by thesemanticmeaningoftheword‘minister.’”).Suchrigidityundermines theReligionClauses’ protection of thiscountry’s religious diversity. This can be seen in theNinthCircuit’sapplicationofthefirstthreeofits“majorconsiderations.”

Underitsfirst“majorconsideration,”theNinthCircuitdeployeda“does-it-sound-secular?”test,declaring,ipsedixit,that“itcannotbesaidthatGrade5Teacher‘conveysareligious—asopposedtosecular—meaning.’”Biel, 911 F.3d at 608 (quotingConlon v. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 777F.3d 829, 834–35 (6thCir. 2015)); see also Morrissey-Berru,769F.App’xat461(“Morrissey-Berru’sformaltitleof‘Teacher’wassecular”).Butthiskindof inquirynecessarilypunishesminorityreligionswhose practices and official titles are lesswell knownandrewardsthosereligionsbetterknowntothepublicandsecularcourts.SuchanoutcomeisincompatiblewiththisCourt’sEstablishmentClause jurisprudence.See

15

Larson,456U.S.at244(“TheclearestcommandoftheEstablishmentClauseisthatonereligiousdenominationcannotbe officiallypreferred over another.”).And it isincompatiblewiththemanyCourtsofAppealsdecisionsfinding that theministerial exception applies to, forexample, a “CorpsCommander,” “WelfareCaseworkSupervisor inDivisionalHeadquarters,” “secretaryin theTerritorialHeadquarter’s [sic]PublicRelationsDepartment,”“communicationsmanager,”layprincipal,nursing home staffmember, and director ofmusic.McClure v. Salvation Army,460F.2d553,554(5thCir.1972);Alicea–Hernandez,320F.3dat704;Fratello, 863 F.3dat208;Shaliehsabou,363F.3dat309–11;Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, N.C., 213F.3d at 801–04.Inshort,religiouslabelscanbeunfamiliarorconfusingto secular courts.See, e.g., Patriarch, Black’s Law Dictionary(11thed.2019)(definingthetermasboth“Amanwhorulesordominatesasocialorpoliticalgroup”and“ThetitleofthemostseniorbishopintheOrthodoxorRomanCatholicChurch”).Theministerialexceptioncannotturnonmerewords.Whatmattersisfunction.

SimilarproblemsattendtheapplicationoftheNinthCircuit’ssecond“majorconsideration,” the“substance”of the title. TheNinthCircuit found that neitherBielnorMorrissey-Berrupossessed sufficient “credentials”or“training”tobeconsideredministers.Biel,911F.3dat 608;Morrissey-Berru, 769F. App’x at 461. Aftertakingpainstocatalogueandcharacterizethesixyearsof “substantial” religious training Perich undertookin Hosanna-Tabor, theNinthCircuit dismissedBiel’sattendance at a “single half-day conference” thatincluded “the incorporation of religious themes intolesson plans,”Biel, 911F.3d at 605, 607, and ignored

16

completely thatMorrissey-Berrumaintained “regularcatechist certifications.”Morrissey-Berru v. Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch., No. 216CV09353SVWAFM, 2017 WL 6527336,at*2(C.D.Cal.Sept.27,2017).InundercuttingorsimplyignoringthereligioustrainingreceivedbyBielandMorrissey-Berru,theNinthCircuitweigheditsownconception of the proper type and amount of religiousinstructiononemustreceivetobeconsideredaministeragainstaleveldeemedadequatebytheCatholicschoolsatissuehere.Thisisadangerousformula,whereby,inordertoenjoytheprotectionsoftheFirstAmendment,religiousinstitutionsmustfirstprovidetheirministerswithformaltrainingthatisdeemedadequateundersecularjudicialexamination.Inanationthatishometoreligionswhoseteachersreceivevaryingamountsofformaltraining—ornoformaltrainingatall4—suchastandardisintolerable.See Fratello, 863F.3d at 208 (applying theministerialexceptiondespite the fact thata “layprincipal” is “notrequiredtomeetanyreligious-educationrequirements”).

TheNinthCircuit’s application of its third “majorconsideration” fares no better.TheNinthCircuit heldthat neitherBiel norMorrissey-Berruheldherself out“tothecommunity”or“tothepublicasareligiousleaderorminister.”Biel,911F.3dat609; Morrissey-Berru, 769 F.App’xat461. TheNinthCircuitthusmadeareligion’sinternaljudgmentsaboutwhoministerstoitsflockturnonwhat thepublic-at-largemightperceiveabout thosejudgments.Again,thisdisadvantagesminorityreligions,

4. MargeryPostAbbotetal.,Historical Dictionary of the Friends (Quakers)225–226(2ded.2012)(notingthat,“[i]ntheQuaker faith, every believer is aminister” and that, althoughformaltrainingmaybeavailable,“it[is]nottrainingoreducationatOxfordorCambridgethatqualifie[s]onetobeaminister”).

17

whose titles and customsmight be lesswell known tothepublicandthesecularjudiciary.Tellingly,theNinthCircuitignoredthemostimportantcommunitytowhichBiel andMorrissey-Berru could hold themselves outas religious leaders: their pupils inside the faith.BothBiel andMorrissey-Berru (1) instructed their studentsin theCatholic faith, its practices, and its tenets, and(2) incorporatedthoseteachings intotheirnon-religionclasses.See Biel,911F.3dat611–12(Nelson,J.,dissenting);Morrissey-Berru, No. 216CV09353SVWAFM, 2017 WL 6527336, at *2. By accepting such responsibilities attheirrespectiveschools,BielandMorrissey-Berruheldthemselves out as sources of religious knowledge andinstructionwhomtheirstudentscouldtrust.See Biel, 911 F.3dat613 (Nelson,J.,dissenting) (noting that theSt.JamesSchool’sFaculty/StaffHandbookincludedthegoalof“guid[ing]thespiritualformationofthestudent…andhop[ing]tohelpeachchildstrengthenhis/herpersonalrelationshipwithGod”).Asexplained ingreaterdetailbelow, education of the next generation of the faithfulisavitalfunctionformostreligionsandisofparticularimportanceforminorityreligionsthatrelyonreligiousschools to impart that education. In failing to considerthe community of students of faithwho looked toBielandMorrissey-Berruforreligiousinstruction,theNinthCircuittooktoonarrowaviewofthecommunityareligiousleaderfacesand,indeed,thecommunityareligiousleaderserves. SeeLund, supra,at68(“Perichwasthestudents’permanentteacher,someonewhosawthemallday,everyday,someonewhotaughtthemauthoritativelyoneveryothersubject.Coming to trustheronhowtoreadandhowtowrite,herstudentsnaturallycametotrustwhatshesaidaboutreligion.”).Thispublic-at-largeteststiflesreligiousdiversitybytellingreligiousgroupsthatwhat

18

mattersisnottheiradherents’religiousbeliefs,buttheperceptionsofoutsiders.

In sum, theNinthCircuit has turned thisCourt’stotality-of-the-circumstancesreviewintoachecklistofrequirementsfocusedonsemanticsoversubstance.Threeofthefourrequirementsmeasuresomethingotherthanreligious function, and if permitted to standwill stiflereligiousfreedomanddiversity.

II. Religious Instruction Is Often a Function at the Very Core of a Religion’s Internal Affairs, and the Ministerial Exception Protects the Selection of Religious Teachers.

Turning finally to its fourth—and only non-title-based—“majorconsideration,”theNinthCircuitheldthatanemployee’sjobdutiescannot“alone”“indicatethattheministerialexceptionapplies.”Biel, 911F.3dat609.Thecourt reasoned that “[i]f it did,most of the analysis inHosanna-Taborwouldbeirrelevantdicta.”Id. But that reasoningignoresthisCourt’sadmonitioninHosanna-Taborthatit“express[ed]noviewonwhethersomeonewithPerich’sdutieswouldbecoveredbytheministerialexceptionintheabsenceoftheotherconsiderationswehave discussed.” 565U.S. at 193.And it ignores thatHosanna-TaborrepresentedthefirsttimethisCourthadrecognizedtheministerialexceptionintheemployment-discriminationcontext,makingitnaturalfortheCourttodescribe—forthebenefitoflowercourtsandthevariedcasestheywillconfront—themanyfactsthatsupported(butwere not dispositive of) its application.See id. at 188(“Untiltoday,wehavenothadoccasiontoconsiderwhetherthisfreedomofareligiousorganizationtoselect

19

itsministersisimplicatedbyasuitallegingdiscriminationinemployment.”);id.at190(“Wearereluctant,however,toadoptarigidformulafordecidingwhenanemployeequalifiesasaminister.Itisenoughforustoconclude,inthisourfirstcaseinvolvingtheministerialexception,thattheexceptioncoversPerich,givenallthecircumstancesof her employment.”).Most significantly, theNinthCircuit’sdismissal of the importanceof jobduties alsoflatlyignoresthestraightforwardstatementinHosanna-Taborthatundergirdingtheministerialexceptionistheimportant“interestofreligiousgroupsinchoosingwhowillpreachtheirbeliefs,teach their faith,andcarryouttheirmission.”Id.at196(emphasisadded).

Thejobdutyatissueinthesecasesisteaching—morespecifically,theteachingofreligion—anditisabsolutelycentraltomanyreligions.Itmaywellbethatforcertainpositions—like a newlyminted pastor who has onlysecretarialdutiesatfirst—acourtmustlookbeyonddutiestofullyprotectareligion’sministerialchoices.ThisiswhyitmadesenseforthisCourtinHosanna-Tabortooffera fullrecitationofsalient facts inthatcase.Butwherethemain duty at issue is so fundamental to the faith,nofurtherinquiryisnecessary.Accordingly,thebetterviewistheoneendorsedbyJusticesAlitoandKagan:theministerialexception“shouldapplytoany‘employee’who…servesasamessengerorteacherofitsfaith.”Id. at 199.

A. The Teaching of Religious Tenets Lies at the Heart of Religion.

TheCourt’sinclusionofonewho“teach[es]…faith”asaparadigmaticexampleofaministerisnoaccident.Afaithcommunitycannotregenerate itselforgrowits

20

adherentsifitcannotteachwhatitisallabout.Andformanyreligionsteachingisonethemostsignificantwaysinwhichreligiouscommandsareimpartedtoadherentssothattheycanbeincorporatedintodailylife.

Forexample,forCatholicsinAmerica—thereligiousgroupatissuehere—educationofyouthhasbeenatthecenterof the faithcommunitysince theFounding.ThefirstCatholic parish school in theUnited StateswasfoundedinPhiladelphiain1783.TimothyWalch,Parish School: American Catholic Parochial Education from Colonial Times to the Present 17 (1996).By the timethe “Catholic parochial schoolmovement had reacheditshighpoint,thereweremorethan4.5millionchildrenin parish elementary schools.” Id. at 1. AmericanCatholics pursued this educationalmission because oftheir “unwaveringbelief that theeducationof childrenisaprimaryresponsibilityofthefamilyandthechurch,”and the “movement to establishCatholic schoolswas,aboveallelse,anefforttopreventCatholicchildrenfromabandoning their religious faith.” Id. at 1–2. This was especially important to nineteenth-centuryCatholicswho objected to public-school curricula that “includedheavydosesofProtestantinstructionandanti-Catholicpropaganda.”Id. at 2.5Manyofthepeoplewhoorganizedandtaught in theseCatholicschoolswerenotordainedmembersoftheclergy;theywerethereligiouslaitywho

5. See also Br. For Senators SteveDaines, Tim Scott,JohnKennedy,andMarshaBlackburnandRepresentativeGregGianforteasAmicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Espinoza v. Mont. Dept. of Revenue,No.18-1195at4(“manyCatholics[][had] longstanding objections that subjecting their children toclassroom readings of theKingJamesBible and anti-Catholictextbooksviolatedtheirreligiousbeliefs”).

21

thoughtitwascriticaltothepreservationoftheirfaithtohavespecificallyCatholiceducationinCatholicschools.See BettyAnnMcNeil,Historical Perspectives on Elizabeth Seton and Education: School is My Chief Business, 9 J. Cath.Educ.284,287(2006)(thebishopofPhiladelphiainthemid-1800s,SaintJohnNeumann,“stronglyadvocatedinvitingcommunitiesofreligiouswomenintothediocesetoteachinthegrowingnumberofparochialschools”).TheCatholicschoolmovementwassoimportanttoAmericanCatholicism that it reportedly led Francis PatrickKenrick,theArchbishopofBaltimorefrom1851to1863,toconcludethatElizabethSeton—thefirstnative-bornU.S.citizentobecanonizedandthefounder,in1810,ofSaintJoseph’sAcademyinMaryland—“didmorefortheChurchinAmericathanallofusbishopstogether.”Id. at 287.

AmericanCatholics,ofcourse,arenotaloneintheirlong tradition of valuing religious education for theiryouth. “Formillennia, inwidely scattered places, andunder various conditions, Jews have instructed theirchildrenconcerningtheteachingsandpracticesofJewishlife,enablingthemtonegotiatetheirwayasJews.”GilGraff,“And You Shall Teach Them Diligently”: A Concise History of Jewish Education in the United States 1776–2000 1(2008).AmericanJews,likeCatholics,cantracetheirreligiousschoolsbacktotheFoundingperiodandasrootedinadesire,asoneearlypromotionofaschoolputit,“tomake[Jewish]childrentrulyvirtuous…[by]rear[ing]theminthestrictprinciplesofourholyreligion.”Id.at13–14.Bythebeginningofthiscentury,“[s]chool-basedJewisheducationalprogramswerereachingnearly80percent”ofJewishchildrenandincludedawidevarietyofprogramsfromdayschoolstoearlychildhoodprogramstorabbinicalseminaries.Id. at 2.

22

Muslims, too,holdyoutheducationasaparamountreligious virtue. The “Qur’an depicts knowledge as agreatbountyfromGodgrantedtoHisprophetsandtheirfollowers through time,” and a “well-known statementof theProphet exhorts, ‘The pursuit of knowledge isincumbentoneveryMuslim,’astatementthathasmadetheacquisitionofatleastrudimentaryknowledgeofreligionanditsdutiesmandatoryfortheMuslimindividual.”AsmaAfsaruddin,Muslim Views on Education: Parameters, Purview, and Possibilities,44J.Cath.LegalStud.143,143–44(2005).Thus,fortheMuslim-Americancommunity,by“2000,thedevelopmentofindependentprivateIslamicschoolshadbecomeanimportantpartofthepictureofMuslim education inAmerica….Their appeal is thatteachersservenotonlyasinstructorsbutasmoralandethical guides.” YvonneY.Haddad& Jane I. Smith,Introduction: The Challenge of Islamic Education in North America,inYvonneY.Haddadetal.,Educating the Muslims of America 6, 11 (2009) .

TheChurch of JesusChrist ofLatter-day Saintsalso stresses the importance of education.Revelationsgiven toJosephSmith state that “[t]hegloryofGod isintelligence,”Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter-day Saints93:36,andthat“[w]hateverprincipleofintelligenceweattainuntointhislife,itwillrisewithus intheresurrection.”Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter-day Saints130:18.BrighamYoungstatedthat“allwisdom,andalltheartsandsciencesintheworldarefromGod,andaredesignedforthegoodofHispeople.”Journal of Discourses13:147.In1875,Latter-daySaintsbeganestablishingschoolsthroughouttheUnitedStates “to provide elementary and secondary secularand religious education.”WilliamE.Berrett,Church

23

Education System (CES) in Encyclopedia of Mormonism 274(DanielH.Ludlowed.,1992).Today,whereverthereare significant populations ofmembers, “TheChurchBoardofEducationhasestablishedelementary,middle,orsecondaryschoolsinwhichbothsecularandreligiousinstructionisoffered.”Id.at275.Latter-daySaintsalso“offer[]seminaryandinstituteprogramstosupplementseculareducationwithreligiousteachings.”Id.

Similarly,Jehovah’sWitnessesbelievethateducationis“vital”andhelpspeopletodeveloptheBiblicalqualitiesof “practical wisdom and thinking ability.”How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses View Education?,https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-education-school.Jehovah’sWitnessesencouragemembers“tohaveawell-roundededucation…aswellasknowledgeaboutotherreligionsandcultures.”Id.Notably,Jehovah’sWitnesses“donotseparatechildrenforreligiousinstruction”andbelievethat“Godwantspeopletoworshiphimwithoutbeingseparatedbyage.”Id.In1943,Jehovah’sWitnessesfoundedwhatisnowknownastheWatchtowerBibleSchoolofGilead,whichofferscoursesthatfocus“primarilyontheBibleandtheimportanceof…evangelizingwork.”SeventyYearsofGileadSchool,https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/activities/ministry/training-evangelizers-seventy-years/.

For the Internat iona l Soc iety for Kr ishnaConsciousness, also known as the Hare Krishnamovement, “education is an integral part of itscommunities.” ISKCON, https: //www.iskcon.org / education.AccordingtotheKrishnaconscious,thegoalinlifeis“toawakenwithineachsoulknowledgeoftheiroriginalspiritualnature,thusbringingtheindividualtotheplatformofGodconsciousness,ordevotionalservice

24

toGod.”Id.TheHareKrishnamovementhas“developedsystematicstudiesofthetextsfundamentaltoKrishnaconsciousness”inordertoprovideopportunitiestogainanunderstandingofitsbeliefs.Id.AndtheHareKrishnamovementprovideseducationalprogramsforchildrenatitstemplesthroughouttheUnitedStates.Id.

Thesurveycouldgoon,sweepingacrosstheAmericanreligiouslandscapetodemonstratethatteachingisoneofthemostfundamentalaspectsofreligiouspractice.SufficeittosaythatitwasnoaccidentandnomistakeforthisCourttospecificallyreference, inHosanna-Tabor,“theinterestofreligiousgroupsinchoosingwhowill…teachtheirfaith.”565U.S.at196.

B. The Ninth Circuit Improperly Minimized the Importance of Religious Teaching.

TheNinthCircuit’sviewisdeeplytroublingbecauseitrecognizesnoprotectionforreligiousteaching—even“significant religious responsibilities as a teacher,”Morrissey-Berru, 769 F. App’x at 461—without thepresenceofatleastonetitle-based“majorconsideration.”Indeed,farfromrecognizingtheimportanceofteachingtotheCatholicfaith—andtoreligionmoregenerally—theNinthCircuitseemedtobelittleit.ItdismissedBiel’s“roleinCatholicreligiouseducation”asnot“important”becauseitwas“limitedtoteachingreligionfromabook.”911F.3dat 609.Of course, even if thiswere a fair descriptionofBiel’s role, see infra II.C, forCatholics, “teachingreligionfromabook”isofparamount importance.See, e.g., Dei Verbum 4:25(“ThesacredsynodalsoearnestlyandespeciallyurgesalltheChristianfaithful,especiallyReligious, to learn by frequent reading of the divine

25

Scriptures”);Sacrosanctum Concilium1:7(“HeispresentinHisword,sinceitisHeHimselfwhospeakswhentheholyscripturesarereadintheChurch.”);Sacrosanctum Concilium 1:24 (“Sacred scripture is of the greatestimportanceinthecelebrationoftheliturgy.”).

The same is true for Protestants because, asFounding-generationChristiansprofessed,forthemtheBible“containsthemostprofoundphilosophy,themostperfectmorality,andthemostrefinedpolicythateverwasconceiveduponearth”(JohnAdams),Our Sacred Honor: Words of Advice from the Founders in Stories, Letters, Poems, and Speeches408(WilliamJ.Bennetted.,1997);“isabookworthmorethanalltheotherbooksthatwereeverprinted”(PatrickHenry),Faith and the Founders of the American Republic149(DanielL.Dreisbach&MarkDavidHalleds.,2014);and“containsmoretruthsthananyotherbookintheworld”(BenjaminRush),CarlJ.Richard,The Founders and the Bible58(2016).Farfromthinking“teachingfromabook”wasunimportanttotheirfaith,FounderslikeJohnJayurged“persever[ing]steadfastlyindistributingtheScripturesfarandnear”because“[w]eareassuredthat they ‘areprofitable fordoctrine, forreproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness(2Tim.3:16).’”AddresstotheAmericanBibleSocietyattheAnnualMeeting(May9,1822).

Formanyothersreligions,“teachingfromabook”isalsocentraltothefaith.Forexample,“Islamisfrequentlycharacterizedasa ‘religionoftheBook,’andthe“[t]hefirstwordsaidtohavebeenutteredbytheangelGabrielinroughly610C.E.,whichinitiatedtheseriesofdivinerevelations to the ProphetMuhammad, was ‘Iqra!’”or “‘read.’”Afsaruddin, supra, 143.Thus, “[t]he act of

26

reading… took on an exceptionally sacrosanct qualitywithinIslamictraditionandpractice.”Id.

Likewise,JewshavebeenknownasAmHaSefer,or“thepeopleofthebook,”KerryM.Olitzky&RonaldH.Isaacs, A Glossary of Jewish Life217(1992),andcentraltotheirreligionisareverenceforteachingfromtheTorahandothersacredtexts.See, e.g., Nehemiah8:1–3(“[A]llthepeoplegatheredtogether”and“askedEzrathescribetobringthebookofthelawofMosesthattheL-rdhadgivenIsrael….Ezrathepriestbroughtthelawbeforetheassemblyofmen,women,andallwhocould listenwithunderstanding. [H]ereadoutof it fromdaybreakuntilnoonbefore themen, thewomen, and thosewho couldunderstand.Allthepeoplelistenedattentivelytothebookofthelaw.”).Indeed,sacredtextsaresoreveredunderJewishtraditionthatitisnotpermissibleforsuchabooktolieontheground;ifasacredbookisdroppeditmustbepickedupandgivenakiss.RonaldL.Eisenberg,The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions 617–18 (2004).

Sikhs,whosenamemeans“students,”adheretothespiritual instruction ofGurus, or “teachers.”EleanorNesbitt, Sikhism: A Very Short Introduction 10 (2ded. 2016).Therewere tenhumanGurus, but after thepassingof the tenth, theGurushippassed to theGuruGranth Sahib—a text—that Sikhs consider “the [G]uruinperpetuity.”GurbachanSingh,The Sikhs: Faith, Philosophy & Folk55(1998).Thus,forSikhs,“teachingfromabook”cannotbelightlydismissedbecausethetextitselfistheteacher—“thelivingembodimentoftheGuru.”The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies 125 (Pashaura Singh&LouisE.Fenecheds.,2014);see also id. at 133–34 (theGuruGranthSahibisthe“basisofthemostimportant

27

Sikhdoctrines,rituals,andsocialandethicalpositions”andis“theultimateauthoritywithintheSikhtradition,forawiderangeofpersonalandpublicconduct”).“SimplytobeinthepresenceoftheGuruGranthSahib,ortohearasentencereadaloudfromit,makesSikhsfeelthattheyareonsacredground.”Id. at 134.

Thus,forCatholics,forotherChristians,forMuslims,for Jews, for Sikhs—and formany other religions—there can scarcely be anythingmore central thanteaching from their sacred texts. Indeed, surveydata suggests that for thoseAmericanswho aremostreligious,readingfromscriptureisattheheartoftheirreligious life.See Religious Landscape Study, Pew ResearchCenter, https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/frequency-of-reading-scripture/#im portance-of-religion-in-ones-life-trend(97%ofthosewhoreport that religion is “very important” or “somewhatimportant” to them also report reading scripture atleastonceperweek).Yet,illustratingthedangerJusticeThomaswarnedagainstinhisconcurrenceinHosanna-Tabor, “‘a secular court’” did not “‘consider religious’”enoughBiel’s teaching religion from a book. 565U.S.at197(quotingCorp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 336 (1987)).

C. As Teachers of Religion, Both Biel and Morrissey-Berru Fell within the Ministerial Exception.

Respondents in these cases were teachers ofreligion.Biel“taughtlessonsontheCatholicfaith”and“incorporated religious themes and symbols into her

28

overallclassroomenvironmentandcurriculum.”Biel, 911 F.3dat609.Biel’sreligionclassincludedlessonsandtestson“theCatholicsacraments,thelivesofCatholicSaints,Catholicprayers,Catholicsocialteaching,Gospelstories,andchurchholidays.”Id.at612(Fisher,J.,dissenting).Additionally,Biel testifiedthatsheprayedprayers liketheLord’s Prayer and theHailMary “twice a day”withherstudents.St. James School Pet.App.93a.Bielfurthertestifiedthatsheattendedschoolmasseswithherstudentseverymonthand,twiceperyear,herstudentsparticipated in presenting theEucharistic gifts. Id. at 94a–95a.Biel’s employment contract provided that themissionofSt.JamesSchoolwas“todevelopandpromoteaCatholicSchoolFaithCommunitywithinthephilosophyofCatholiceducationasimplementedat[St.James],andthedoctrines,laws,andnormsoftheCatholicChurch.”Biel,911F.3dat612(Fisher,J.,dissenting).AndtheSt.JamesFaculty/StaffHandbookexplainedthattheschool’sstaffwould“guidethespiritualformationofthestudent...andhopetohelpeachchildstrengthenhis/herpersonalrelationshipwithGod.”Id.

Similarly,Morrissey-Berruwasassuredlyateacherofreligion.ThefacultyofOurLadyofGuadalupeSchoolis“committedtofaith-basededucation,providingaqualityCatholiceducationforthestudentsandstrivingtocreatea spiritually enriched learning environment, groundedin Catholic social teachings, values, and traditions.”Morrissey-Berru, No. 216CV09353SVWAFM, 2017 WL 6527336,at*2.Morrissey-Berrufulfilledthatcommitmentby teachingand testingher students on “the tenets oftheCatholicreligion,howtopray,and...ahostofotherreligioustopics”onadailybasis.Id;see also Our Lady of Guadalupe SchoolPet.App.91a–94a(Morrissey-Berru

29

testifying that she taught her students, among otherthings, to “learn and express [the] belief that Jesus isthesonofGodandtheWordmadeflesh”;“tobeabletoidentifythewaysthatthechurchcarriesonthemissionof Jesus”; “the communion of saints”; “to recognizethepresenceofChristintheEucharist”;to“beabletolocate,readandunderstandstoriesfromtheBiblethatrelatetothesacraments”;“tocelebrateaprayerserviceofReconciliation”; “how to pray theApostles’ CreedandtheNiceneCreed”;“torecognizethemeaningandcelebrationoftheSacredTriduum”;and“tounderstandoriginalsin”).TheNinthCircuitconcededthatMorrissey-Berru had “significant religious responsibilities as ateacher.”Morrissey-Berru,769F.App’xat461 (notingthatMorrissey-Berru“ledherstudentsindailyprayer,wasinchargeofliturgyplanningforamonthlyMass,anddirected andproduced a performance by her studentsduringtheSchool’sEastercelebrationeveryyear”).Thisis unsurprising, asMorrissey-Berru testified that shewas“committed”to“teachingchildrenCatholicvalues”and providing a “faith-based education.”Our Lady of Guadalupe School Pet. App. 82a.

***

InfocusingonbothRespondents’titles,ratherthantheir important religious functions, theNinthCircuitheld that neitherBiel norMorrissey-Berru could beconsidered a “minister.”See Biel, 911F.3d at 607–09; Morrissey-Berru,769F.App’xat460–61.Thereis,tobesure,nosingulardefinitionfor“minister,”andwedonotsuggestthatthisCourtshouldattempttoestablishsuchabright-linedescription.Yetwhetherinthepulpitorintheclassroom,attheheartofministryformanyreligions

30

isteachingthefaith.See Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 196. In Hosanna-Tabor, thisCourtunanimouslyheldthataministerialexceptionundertheReligionClausesexists.Inthiscase,theCourtshouldtaketheopportunitytoholdthattheexceptionincludesthosewhoexecutetheprofounddutyofteachingthefaithtothenextgeneration,whetherthey be called priest, pastor, imam, rabbi, teacher, ornothingatall.AnythinglesswouldimperilthereligiouspluralismoftheUnitedStates.

CONCLUSION

Thejudgmentsbelowshouldbereversed.

Respectfullysubmitted,

Jesse PanuccIo

Counsel of RecordWIllIam Bloom

BoIes schIller Flexner llP1401 New York Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20005(202) 237-2727jpanuccio@bsfllp.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

APPENDIX

Appendix A

1a

Appendix — LiST OF AMICI CURIAE

United States Senate

United States House of Representatives

Mike Braun (IN)

Tom Cotton (AR)

Kevin Cramer (ND)

Ted Cruz (TX)

Josh Hawley (MO)

James M. Inhofe (OK)

James Lankford (OK)

Mike Lee (UT)

Ben Sasse (NE)

Thom Tillis (NC)

Robert B. Aderholt (AL-04)

Rick W. Allen (GA-12)

Brian Babin, D.D.S. (TX-36)

Doug Collins (GA-09)

Paul Gosar, D.D.S. (AZ-04)

Andy Harris, M.D. (MD-01)

Vicky Hartzler (MO-04)

Jody Hice (GA-10)

Steve King (IA-04)

Mike Kelly (PA-16)

Doug LaMalfa (CA-01)

Doug Lamborn (CO-05)

Robert E. Latta (OH-05)

Barry Loudermilk (GA-11)

Mark Meadows (NC-11)

Ralph Norman (SC-05)

Steven Palazzo (MS-04)

Adrian Smith (NE-03)

Chris Stewart (UT-02)