How the next US president could hold more legal sway than God

While this may not yet be inscribed on tablets of stone, you might be surprised to learn that in the UK God is subject to the rule of law, while in the USA, the President reigns supreme.

In the countdown to Christmas the Court of Appeal ruled that God was not above the law. In a judgement issued on 20 December, the court ruled that former Methodist Minister Haley Preston was entitled to take the church to an employment tribunal to challenge her dismissal.

The ruling came shortly after Newt Gingrich, Republican Party presidential hopeful announced that as President he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with his powers as commander in chief, and would press for impeaching judges and even abolish certain courts if he disagreed with their rulings.

The Court of Appeal’s decision was the latest stage in a two-year battle between Haley Preston and the Methodist Church in Britain. Preston was ordained as a Minister in 2003, and in 2006 was appointed for a five-year term as minister to a group of Methodist congregations in Cornwall.

In 2009, she came into conflict with the church, was put under pressure to resign, and warned that steps were being taken to “curtail” her appointment. Her solicitor wrote to the church submitting her resignation, and she made an employment tribunal claim against the church, arguing she had been unfairly constructively dismissed.

The tribunal which heard her case ruled that she was not an employee and therefore could not claim unfair dismissal. But her appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was successful. The EAT noted that she was treated exactly like an employee in virtually all areas of her work. She was paid through PAYE, received holidays and holiday pay, was entitled to sick pay, was a member of the church’s pension scheme, could be subject to disciplinary action, and underwent appraisal on an annual basis.

The church’s appeal against the EAT’s decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 20 December. The church now plans to take the fight to the UK Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic would-be candidates for the Republican nomination as candidate in next year’s presidential campaign are hotting up. As ever in US politics, sex, money, and religion are well to the fore.

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, is in the midst of a determined run for the Republication nomination to challenge Barack Obama.

No stranger to scandal, and now on his third wife, Gingrich is upping the temperature with controversial arguments. An outspoken critic of courts and judges which reach decisions he disagrees with, Gingrich said in late December that: “I’m fed up with elitist judges” who seek to impose their “radically un-American” views.

Gingrich has been telling audiences that he is determined to expose the myth of “judicial supremacy” and asserting that “…the courts have become grossly dictatorial and far too powerful”.

On his website, Gingrich spells out his views on judges and the courts: “While abolishing judgeships and lower federal courts is a blunt tool and one whose use is warranted only in the most extreme of circumstances, those who care about the rule of law can be relied upon to consider whatever constitutionally permissibly tools they can find to fight federal judges and courts exceeding their powers. It is one of many possibilities to check and balance the judiciary.”

The conclusions are inescapable. In the UK, God is answerable to the courts, while in the US, depending on next year’s election result, the courts may become answerable to Newt Gingrich. Does that mean, then, that God will also be answerable to Newt? Newt hopes so.

• Steve Briggs is Operations Director, Law At Work

Follow @scotsmanlaw on Twitter