In the case of Probst v. Trustees of the Board of Domestic Missions of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the Trustees of the Board of Domestic Missions of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (the “Trustees”) had the right to terminate the employment of a minister, Reverend Probst, without cause. The Court held that the Trustees did not have the right to terminate Reverend Probst’s employment without cause. The Court reasoned that the Trustees were not a corporation, but rather a voluntary association of individuals, and as such, they did not have the power to terminate Reverend Probst’s employment without cause. The Court further reasoned that the Trustees had no authority to make a contract with Reverend Probst that would bind him to their decisions. The Court concluded that the Trustees had no right to terminate Reverend Probst’s employment without cause, and that he was entitled to damages for the wrongful termination. The Court also held that the Trustees were liable for the costs of the litigation. In sum, the Supreme Court held that the Trustees of the Board of Domestic Missions of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church did not have the right to terminate the employment of Reverend Probst without cause, and that he was entitled to damages for the wrongful termination.

In the case of Probst v. Trustees of the Board of Domestic Missions of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, Justice Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that it was not within Congress’s power to pass an act that would allow for suits against religious organizations. He believed that such action would violate both Article III and Amendment I by allowing civil courts to interfere with matters related to religion, something they are constitutionally prohibited from doing. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress were allowed to pass this type of legislation then it could potentially lead down a slippery slope where other laws infringing on religious liberty could be passed as well. In conclusion, Justice Harlan felt strongly that any attempt by Congress or state legislatures to regulate or control internal church affairs should be struck down as unconstitutional because it violates our nation’s commitment to protecting freedom of religion and separation between church and state.