McDaniel v. Paty (1977)
- Docket
- 76-1427
- Decided
- 1977-01-01
Summary
Question: Does the Tennessee statute barring “Minister[s] of the Gospel or priest[s] of any denomination whatever” from serving as legislators violate the free exercise of religion guaranteed through the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Conclusion: Yes. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court. The Court held that the statute made the ability to exercise civil rights conditional on the surrender of religious rights and therefore violated the First Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the Court hesitated to strike down a statute that had such a long and vital national history, Tennessee could not prove that clergy participation was dangerous to the modern political processes. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. concurred in the judgment. He argued that the Tennessee statute essentially established a test of religious conviction in order to be eligible for office that disqualified anyone with a strong enough belief to join the clergy. Government imposition of the burden to choose between one’s religious beliefs and the desire to seek office is an unconstitutional restriction on the free exercise of religion. He argued that the Establishment Clause does not give the government the power to discriminate against religious persons seeking or holding office. Justice Marshall joined in the opinion concurring in judgment. Justice Potter Stewart separately concurred in the judgment, and wrote that this case was covered by the ruling in Torcaso v. Watkins , where the Court held that states may not condition public office on any type of religious belief. Justice Byron R. White wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment. He argued that, rather than violating the First Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion, the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the statute is specific to ministers, it implies that ministers are less able to keep outside interests from interfering with their governmental service than anyone else. Tennessee was not able to prove the necessity of this restriction. Justice Harry A. Blackmun did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.