Ministerial Exception and Church Autonomy

Two recent decisions from federal appellate courts clarify the scope of the First Amendment’s protections for religious employers and provide some practical guidance.

If churches discuss sex abuse allegations publicly, are they liable for defamation claims? Maybe, but there are some defenses, as a recent Texas case held.

A recent opinion letter from the U.S. Department of Labor suggests that the Ministerial Exception of the First Amendment applies to wage and hour laws. This issue has significant implications for churches and ministries.

A recent decision from a federal appellate court explores the boundaries of the First Amendment’s ministerial exception to employment laws, specifically about the type of claims a minister can bring.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently handed down a First Amendment decision that is likely to clarify job descriptions for religious employers and their employees.

Federal and state laws prohibit specific types of employment screening, but how do these laws apply for religious organizations, and are there exceptions?

In September of 2018, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the lower court had authority to rule on a merger agreement and contract between two churches, and that did not overstep church authority.

If you have employees who may be ministers, you need to take practical steps to define their role. Here are some suggestions on how to clarify who is a minister.

Not everything a church does to a pastor is outside the reach of the court. That is a recent lesson church officials learned in a case out of Ohio federal court dealing with the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. Also known as the church autonomy doctrine, this is the principle that civil courts will stay out of the doctrinal and important decisions a church makes, such as the decision to fire a pastor or remove a parishioner from membership.

Defamation claims against religious organizations are more common than you would think. It’s almost impossible to challenge who a religious organization selects as a minister or how it disciplines that minister. So these claims focus on the idea that what was said about the minister is defamatory—something that is not directly controlled by constitutional law. Here is a recent example of a case that ultimately had an indirect constitutional defense.