This Court has stated that the First Amendmentshields churches from civil-court scrutiny “over the selec-tion of those who will personify [their] beliefs.”
Ho-sanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.
, 132 S.Ct. 694, 706 (2012).
Moreover, consistent with its settled precedent, the Court removed from thereach of civil litigation any inquiry into whether the reli-gious motivation for such personnel decision “was pretex-tual,”
at 709, or whether the discipline “compl[ied] with church laws and regulations,”
at 705. In thiscase, by contrast, the court below sustained a jury verdictagainst the senior pastor of a church when the trial in-cluded extensive questioning of the findings made duringthe church-discipline process, the sincerity and validity of the religious grounds for the revocation of a minister’sordination, and whether the church had adhered to itsown internal procedures.The question presented is whether the First Amend-ment permits imposing liability on a church pastor forrevoking the ordination of a minister and communicatingthe reasons for that revocation to those who had initiatedthe internal disciplinary process: leaders of the church where that minister was then serving.