The Perils of Relying on the Wrong Clause—Grounding the Ministerial Exception at the Supreme Court

IRA C. LUPU, ROBERT TUTTLE

GW Law professors Ira C. Lupu and Robert W. Tuttle explain why the path the U.S. Supreme Court is taking in ministerial exception cases—relying on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment—is dangerously misguided. Lupu and Tuttle argue that the ministerial exception rests primarily on the Establishment Clause and is strictly limited to employment decisions about who leads or controls a faith community, or who transmits a faith.

Read More

State v. Waters

Docket: SC97910

Opinion Date: March 17, 2020

Judge: Patricia Breckenridge

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal challenging his convictions for first-degree statutory sodomy and attempted first-degree statutory sodomy, holding that, because two counts as to which the jury could not reach of verdict remained pending, the circuit court's judgment was not final. A jury convicted Appellant of the two sodomy charges but could not reach a verdict on the charges for first-degree statutory rape and incest. The circuit court declared a mistrial as to the rape and incest charges. The court then entered a judgment disposing of and imposing sentences on the two sodomy charges. The judgment, however, was silent as to the two counts on which the court had ordered a mistrial. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because Appellant was charged with four counts and two of those counts remained pending before the circuit court, the court's judgment of conviction on only two of the counts was not final for purposes of appeal.

Annayeva v. SAB of the TSD of the City of St. Louis

Dockets: SC98122, SC98124

Opinion Date: March 17, 2020

Judge: Zel M. Fischer

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying Appellant's claim for workers' compensation benefits for injuries she suffered when she fell while entering her workplace, holding that Appellant failed to prove that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. An administrative law judge denied Appellant any workers' compensation benefits, concluding that Appellant did not meet her burden of showing that her fall was the prevailing factor causing the conditions of which she complained. The Commission affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish that her injury arose out of her employment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claim was noncompensable because she failed to prove her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment because the hazard or risk involved was one Appellant was equally exposed to in her regular, nonemployment life.

DI Supply I, LLC v. Director of Revenue

Docket: SC97932

Opinion Date: March 17, 2020

Judge: Powell

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission determining that DI Supply I, LLC's room furnishing sales to the Drury Hotels were not exempt from sales tax under the resale exemption in Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.010.1(11), holding that DI Supply failed to meet its burden to prove that the items it sold to Drury Hotels were resold by the hotels. An audit determined that DI Supply failed to remit sales tax on more than $11 million in taxable sales of room furnishings to Drury Hotels during the audit period. DI Supply contested the tax liability, arguing that the items of tangible personal property were purchased for resale to hotel guests and not subject to Missouri local sales or use tax. The Commission upheld $613,159 of the assessment for sales tax and interest. On appeal, DI Supply contested its sales tax liability for sales of room furnishings to Drury Hotels. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that DI Supply failed to show that Drury Hotels transferred title or ownership of the room furnishings and, therefore, failed to show the applicability of the resale exemption by clear and unequivocal proof.

Knopik v. Shelby Investments, LLC

Docket: SC97985

Opinion Date: March 17, 2020

Judge: Mary R. Russell

Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court finding that the petition filed by a trust's sole beneficiary seeking removal of the trustee violated the trust's no-contest clause and in entering summary judgment in the trustee's favor on its declaratory judgment claim, holding that the no-contest clause in the trust document was enforceable. After the beneficiary in this case stopped receiving distributions from the trust, he filed suit against the trustee for removal of the trustee and breach of trust. The trustee filed a counterclaim seeking a judgment declaring that the petition violated the trust instrument's no-contest clause and thus canceled and revoked all trust provisions in the beneficiary's favor. The circuit court sustained the motion for summary judgment on the trustee's counterclaim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the beneficiary did not seek relief form the no-contest clause pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 456.4-420 and instead filed a petition asserting the claims the settlor unambiguously stated would forfeit the beneficiary's interest in the trust, the circuit court properly found the petition violated the trust's no-contest clause.