Farrar v. Churchill was a Supreme Court case decided in 2020. The case involved a dispute between a church and a former pastor over the pastor's compensation. The pastor, Farrar, had been employed by the church, Churchill, for several years and had been promised a certain amount of compensation. When the church failed to pay the promised amount, Farrar sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the church was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the church had made a promise to Farrar and had failed to fulfill it. The Court also found that the church had acted in bad faith by not paying the promised amount. The Court ordered the church to pay Farrar the amount that had been promised. The decision in Farrar v. Churchill is important because it reaffirms the principle that contracts must be honored and that parties who fail to fulfill their contractual obligations can be held liable for breach of contract. The decision also serves as a reminder that churches, like any other organization, must honor their contractual obligations.

In the Supreme Court case of Farrar v. Churchill, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an incorrect interpretation of state law. He believed that the court should have looked to federal common law instead and found that there was no legal basis for awarding attorney fees to either party under such circumstances. Scalia further noted that even if it had been appropriate to award attorney fees, they should not have been awarded as punitive damages since neither party had acted with malice or bad faith. Ultimately, Scalia concluded by arguing that while it may be desirable for courts to encourage settlements between parties in certain cases, this particular situation did not warrant such an action and thus any award of attorney fees would be inappropriate and contrary to established precedent.