Calm Posted January 19, 2022 Posted January 19, 2022 Haven’t seen discussed here. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011822zor_5iel.pdf Not a legal expert and only looked at dissent. Rather surprised by the decision if dissent is accurate. Quote Primarily, the City has argued that the church is not entitled to a tax credit because it misunderstands who qualifies as “minister” in its own faith tradition. To develop this argument, the City conducted extensive discovery into church practices and beliefs. In its interrogatories, the City asked questions such as whether church “doctrine and/or polity” permits Anacari Storms “to be ordained” given that she is a woman… Ultimately, the City argued that the church is “governed by the Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America” and that the “Book of Church Order utilizes the term ‘minister’ in contexts that make it clear that the term refers to a duly ordained person with specific leadership duties.”…The Storms failed this test, the City argued, because they had “not been ordained” and are not listed as a “Lead Pastor, Associate Pastor, or Assistant Pastor” on the congregation’s website… The church tried to explain that the City misunderstood its traditions and practices. The church responded that, yes, women can and do serve as ministers…. It acknowledged that “in order to deliver sermons” a minister in its tradition must be ordained but nothing in its rules or the Book of Church Order “prohibits a particular church from hiring ministers to serve as messengers and teachers of the faith” without ordination….. Instead, the church explained its understanding that “Section 12 of the Book of Church Order provides each church rather broad authority to govern its own affairs[,] which . . . include[s] the ability to hire ministers to cater to specialized groups, such as youth.”… It seems that none of these explanations satisfied the City. Rather than drop its suit, it pressed on with its effort to have the church’s tax exemption withdrawn. Ultimately, it even persuaded a state trial court to rule in its favor. After the Virginia Supreme Court declined to review that judgment, the church filed a petition for certiorari in this Court. Yet even now, before this Court, the City continues to insist that a church’s religious rules are “subject to verification” by government officials…. The …. are citations I removed for ease of reading. 1
Calm Posted January 19, 2022 Author Posted January 19, 2022 (edited) https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/over-gorsuch-dissent-justices-deny-review-in-dispute-over-definition-of-minister-for-tax-exemption-purposes/ Quote The justices denied review in Trustees of the New Life in Christ Church v. City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, a challenge to the city’s denial of a property tax exemption for a property owned by the church and occupied by a couple whom the church designated as its “ministers.” When the city disputed the designation, the church asked the justices to weigh in on whether the city’s reliance on its own interpretation of church doctrine to overrule the church’s interpretation of what constitutes a minister violated the First Amendment. After considering the case at eight consecutive conferences, the justices turned down the church’s request on Tuesday. Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented from that decision, explaining that he would not only grant the church’s petition for review but also rule in its favor even without additional briefing and oral argument on the merits. “The First Amendment,” Gorsuch stressed, “does not permit bureaucrats or judges to ‘subject’ religious beliefs ‘to verification.’” Do they have to explain why they declined? I am getting the sense not, which makes me really wonder about this case because if the church is willing to pay for a residence for someone they call a minister and have specific duties for and there is no obvious attempt to get around the law (such as the alleged minister not having any significant duties and donating to the church the amount the church pays for leasing a property, so there is no cost to the Church actually) plus the church is not abusing the right by have a couple a dozen ministers for a small congregation, seems to me they should be able to claim for a minister’s residence for someone they say is a minister rather than the city saying ‘nuh uh’. Edited January 19, 2022 by Calm 1
The Nehor Posted January 19, 2022 Posted January 19, 2022 2 hours ago, Calm said: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/over-gorsuch-dissent-justices-deny-review-in-dispute-over-definition-of-minister-for-tax-exemption-purposes/ Do they have to explain why they declined? I am getting the sense not, which makes me really wonder about this case because if the church is willing to pay for a residence for someone they call a minister and have specific duties for and there is no obvious attempt to get around the law (such as the alleged minister not having any significant duties and donating to the church the amount the church pays for leasing a property, so there is no cost to the Church actually) plus the church is not abusing the right by have a couple a dozen ministers for a small congregation, seems to me they should be able to claim for a minister’s residence for someone they say is a minister rather than the city saying ‘nuh uh’. No, the Supreme Court doesn’t have to say why they are choosing not to review a case. Someone who dissents on the decision can write up a piece on why they disagree (like Gorsuch did) but that is not required either. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 20, 2022 Posted January 20, 2022 Govt needs to define who a member of the clergy is in each religious organization. A Roman Catholic priest, for example, can claim legal confidentiality for any confession he may receive, and his parishioner can claim that same confidentiality to avoid prosecution. If everyone claims to be a "minister," then no one can be a minister. The Federal Bureau of Prisons recognizes only the local LDS ward bishop as the clergyman in charge of a prison Mormon congregation, even if other members of the LDS priesthood come to visit regularly. The same applies to the local Protestant pastor, or Jewish rabbi, or Islamic imam. Not just anyone can claim the title.
Amulek Posted January 20, 2022 Posted January 20, 2022 On 1/19/2022 at 12:02 AM, Calm said: Not a legal expert and only looked at dissent. Rather surprised by the decision if dissent is accurate. If you look at the city's response, it seems that maybe the situation isn't as dire as the reporting appears. While I do have concerns about government performing "independent inquiry" into church affairs, and as much as I was heartened by Justice Gorsuch's remarks, it seems like what the city was trying to do here was merely determine whether or not the ministers in question were actually the church's head ministers. According to the city, "The church is free to name as many minsters as it wishes, but the Virginia Code permissibly provides a real property tax exemption for one residence only – 'The residence of the minister of the church.' Despite how the Church seeks to frame the lower state court’s finding, this case was never about delving into ecclesiastical pursuits or abridging the Church’s right to exercise its religion." The question in my mind, then, is whether or not the church is already claiming a tax exemption for another property. If it is, then I don't think the city is acting unreasonably. If, however, the church isn't claiming a tax exemption for any other minister, I'm not sure why the city is fighting this so hard - just cut the church a break for crying out loud. 1
Calm Posted January 21, 2022 Author Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Amulek said: According to the city, "The church is free to name as many minsters as it wishes, but the Virginia Code permissibly provides a real property tax exemption for one residence only – 'The residence of the minister of the church.' Despite how the Church seeks to frame the lower state court’s finding, this case was never about delving into ecclesiastical pursuits or abridging the Church’s right to exercise its religion." Thank you, I wasn’t paying as close attention to it as I thought I was. Makes more sense now to me. Very helpful. Quote I'm not sure why the city is fighting this so hard - just cut the church a break for crying out loud. That was my response…one exemption guys, they are not running amok making claims right and left…and now it has likely cost the city more than it will be able to save by denying future minister exemption claims. Edited January 21, 2022 by Calm
smac97 Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 On 1/18/2022 at 11:20 PM, Calm said: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/over-gorsuch-dissent-justices-deny-review-in-dispute-over-definition-of-minister-for-tax-exemption-purposes/ Do they have to explain why they declined? No. SCOTUS has huge numbers of cases submitted to it, only a small percentage of which are accepted for review. Per this article, the acceptance rate is about 2.8%. On 1/18/2022 at 11:20 PM, Calm said: I am getting the sense not, which makes me really wonder about this case because if the church is willing to pay for a residence for someone they call a minister and have specific duties for and there is no obvious attempt to get around the law (such as the alleged minister not having any significant duties and donating to the church the amount the church pays for leasing a property, so there is no cost to the Church actually) plus the church is not abusing the right by have a couple a dozen ministers for a small congregation, seems to me they should be able to claim for a minister’s residence for someone they say is a minister rather than the city saying ‘nuh uh’. Fredericksburg, VA is a pretty small town (its population just shy of 28,000). It looks like the city attorney there has been in place since 2004 (see here). I wonder if this case is more about the Powers-That-Be in a small town blowing up an issue into something bigger than it should have been. I'm currently working on a case arising in a small town in Utah, and I am finding that the dispute is much less about the law, the facts, and common sense, and is instead much more about personality conflicts, power struggles, and vendettas. Thanks, -Smac
Kenngo1969 Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 On 1/19/2022 at 9:41 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Govt needs to define who a member of the clergy is in each religious organization. A Roman Catholic priest, for example, can claim legal confidentiality for any confession he may receive, and his parishioner can claim that same confidentiality to avoid prosecution. If everyone claims to be a "minister," then no one can be a minister. The Federal Bureau of Prisons recognizes only the local LDS ward bishop as the clergyman in charge of a prison Mormon congregation, even if other members of the LDS priesthood come to visit regularly. The same applies to the local Protestant pastor, or Jewish rabbi, or Islamic imam. Not just anyone can claim the title. And in rare cases, prosecutors may even be able to pierce the confessional veil. I don't have citations to any cases right now, but I remember one of my professors describing such a case* and ending with, "Moral of the story? Confess to God, not to your bishop!" *This occurred back when mandated reporting laws were not quite as common or as far-reaching as they are now, so (despite the fact that child abuse, of course, is no laughing matter), that may have been what we were discussing: I don't recall.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 47 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: And in rare cases, prosecutors may even be able to pierce the confessional veil. I don't have citations to any cases right now, but I remember one of my professors describing such a case* and ending with, "Moral of the story? Confess to God, not to your bishop!" *This occurred back when mandated reporting laws were not quite as common or as far-reaching as they are now, so (despite the fact that child abuse, of course, is no laughing matter), that may have been what we were discussing: I don't recall. It doesn't matter what the nature of the crime may be, murder, child abuse, etc. The veil of confidentiality is absolute. However, if the perpetrator is continuing his crime(s), and so confesses, the cleric may notify police. Otherwise the cleric must maintain strict secrecy. If he does not, he and his religious organization may be sued for a large sum, and the perp may petition the court to ignore the fruit from the poison tree. Mandated reporting is not considered in such instances. If a victim comes to the cleric, he is free to call police, and should do so. The rules of confidentiality also apply to physicians and lawyers.
Recommended Posts