This is good news, and the court made the right and proper decision here. But it almost wasn’t: the 2024 Minnesota ERA (which would’ve changed the state constitution to protect MoChridie) almost passed, and only failed on a technicality of quorum. If it had quorum, it would’ve passed, and the school would have lost the case. And in Wisconsin, the state supreme court ruled that Catholic Charities cannot be considered protected as faith-based organizations. And in Washington state, the infamous bill that requires priests to violate the Seal of Confession is now the law by letter, unchanged, and the only consolation is that the state said “well we’ll just not enforce it on priests (for now).”
This MN case is a victory, but we still have a long uphill battle ahead. We are still hanging on the precipice.
Any change to Minnesota law or the state constitution would not impact the First Amendment analysis, which the Court said was on the side of the school's faith-based mission. So the result would have been the same because of the supremacy clause in the United States Constitution.
Freedom of religion protections are exceptionally strong in this country, in part because even the more progressive wing of the court will often view these issues through the lens of a minority religious practitioner: Would we be comfortable allowing a religious majority to impose beliefs on or curtail the practices of, say, a small Hindu religious school in an ethnic conclave in an urban area?
If the Minnesota law had been enacted, it’s basically guaranteed the six Republican-appointed justices would strike it down, but it’s not hard to imagine one or all of the Democratic-appointed justices would do the same. Particularly Elena Kagan who is herself the only Jew on the court.
I am once again shocked that lawyers and lay people alike keep challenging the local church in these matters. It is absolutely a waste of time. Firstly though, why hire this person in the first place? There must have been some concept of them not living in a manner according to the faith before they were hired. I get the don't ask, don't tell narrative, but still. It's not a hard situation to decipher.
If the employee has been there for a period of time, it does happen that something will change with the employee where they'll go from being in conformity with the mission to out of conformity with the mission.
That he was the librarian is telling. A lot of library science has a lot of critical theory-centric coursework and as has been demonstrated time again, it is VERY easy to radicalise yourself into wildly self-destructive action on the internet in moments of vulnerability. Sometimes it's trans, sometimes it's neo Nazism, sometimes is anarchocommunisim sometimes is Islamism, sometimes is unspeakable things...
We don't have any kind of protection in Australia from this kind of legal case. So far we haven't had the kind of situation here, but the ruling would be very different in our current legal anti discrimination legislation.
Right and I agree. I’m just saying that MoChride said that it was impossible to follow church teachings and the rules. It’s open and shut. Why challenge that? It’s always going to be a loser case.
I did a few minutes of research, couldn't tell if Rezyl was his given name or the name he chose when he "transitioned." But props in not using the incorrect pronoun (it looks like no pronouns at all were used).
Almost certainly a chosen name. His last name is a (sort of) made up name. It’s literally the words “my heart” in Scots Gaelic smashed into a single word and made into a name.
This is good news, and the court made the right and proper decision here. But it almost wasn’t: the 2024 Minnesota ERA (which would’ve changed the state constitution to protect MoChridie) almost passed, and only failed on a technicality of quorum. If it had quorum, it would’ve passed, and the school would have lost the case. And in Wisconsin, the state supreme court ruled that Catholic Charities cannot be considered protected as faith-based organizations. And in Washington state, the infamous bill that requires priests to violate the Seal of Confession is now the law by letter, unchanged, and the only consolation is that the state said “well we’ll just not enforce it on priests (for now).”
This MN case is a victory, but we still have a long uphill battle ahead. We are still hanging on the precipice.
Any change to Minnesota law or the state constitution would not impact the First Amendment analysis, which the Court said was on the side of the school's faith-based mission. So the result would have been the same because of the supremacy clause in the United States Constitution.
Yes. The Minnesota ERA would have been overturned, in part or in full.
In the courts, for all the organizations capable of getting the necessary legal representation to appeal until they get a just ruling, eventually.
The Wisconsin case I assume you’re discussing was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court this summer: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-catholic-social-ministry-over-tax-exemption/
Freedom of religion protections are exceptionally strong in this country, in part because even the more progressive wing of the court will often view these issues through the lens of a minority religious practitioner: Would we be comfortable allowing a religious majority to impose beliefs on or curtail the practices of, say, a small Hindu religious school in an ethnic conclave in an urban area?
If the Minnesota law had been enacted, it’s basically guaranteed the six Republican-appointed justices would strike it down, but it’s not hard to imagine one or all of the Democratic-appointed justices would do the same. Particularly Elena Kagan who is herself the only Jew on the court.
I was going to make a similar comment -- this Supreme Court is very strong on religious liberty. We're on very stable ground here.
I was going to say this, too, Seth and Rebecca.
I am once again shocked that lawyers and lay people alike keep challenging the local church in these matters. It is absolutely a waste of time. Firstly though, why hire this person in the first place? There must have been some concept of them not living in a manner according to the faith before they were hired. I get the don't ask, don't tell narrative, but still. It's not a hard situation to decipher.
If the employee has been there for a period of time, it does happen that something will change with the employee where they'll go from being in conformity with the mission to out of conformity with the mission.
That he was the librarian is telling. A lot of library science has a lot of critical theory-centric coursework and as has been demonstrated time again, it is VERY easy to radicalise yourself into wildly self-destructive action on the internet in moments of vulnerability. Sometimes it's trans, sometimes it's neo Nazism, sometimes is anarchocommunisim sometimes is Islamism, sometimes is unspeakable things...
We don't have any kind of protection in Australia from this kind of legal case. So far we haven't had the kind of situation here, but the ruling would be very different in our current legal anti discrimination legislation.
It sounds like MoChridhe wasn't outwardly portraying the sinful life. No one is sinless, but flaunting it in front of students is the issue.
Right and I agree. I’m just saying that MoChride said that it was impossible to follow church teachings and the rules. It’s open and shut. Why challenge that? It’s always going to be a loser case.
Lawyers get paid even if they lose.
Fair point
I did a few minutes of research, couldn't tell if Rezyl was his given name or the name he chose when he "transitioned." But props in not using the incorrect pronoun (it looks like no pronouns at all were used).
Almost certainly a chosen name. His last name is a (sort of) made up name. It’s literally the words “my heart” in Scots Gaelic smashed into a single word and made into a name.