Supreme Court: Wisconsin Unconstitutionally Discriminated Against Catholic Charities

Supreme Court: Wisconsin Unconstitutionally Discriminated Against Catholic Charities

In a 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment when it denied Catholic Charities the exemption from paying unemployment compensation taxes.

Wisconsin’s “statute exempts nonprofit organizations ‘operated primarily for religious purposes’ and ‘operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches.'”

Catholic Charities claimed it falls under the exemption since the Diocese of Superior controls it.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed because “the petitioners are not ‘operated primarily for religious purposes’ because they neither engage in proselytization nor serve only Catholics in their charitable work.”

The court described Catholic Charities’ actions as “secular in nature” and not religious because those who work for it don’t have to be Catholic, nor does it preach the Catholic faith or pass out Catholic reading material.

However, the state and the court stuck to those arguments even though they never denied that Catholic Charities is an “arm” of the diocese or denied that the bishop has control over it.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor reminded Wisconsin, “The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religions and subjects any state-sponsored denominational preference to strict scrutiny.”

I guess none of the judges on the Wisconsin Supreme Court are Catholic:

Catholic teaching, petitioners say, forbids “‘misus[ing] works of charity for purposes of proselytism.’” Brief for Petitioners 10 (quoting Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops “Apostolorum Successores” ¶196). It also requires provision of charitable services “without making distinctions ‘by race, sex, or religion.’” Brief for Petitioners 7 (quoting App. to Pet. for Cert. 431a).

Exactly. As Catholics, we are taught to help everyone. One of our religious purposes is to help everyone.

Sotomayor noted that many religions share similar standards regarding charity, including Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, and Hinduism. Some religions and sects do require proselytism [trying to convert someone to the religion].

The state argued that it does not have denominational preferences or prefer one religion over another, but it obviously does, as evidenced by the differences I mentioned above.

“Decisions about whether to ‘express and inculcate religious doctrine’ through worship, proselytization, or religious education when performing charitable work are, again, fundamentally theological choices driven by the content of different religious doctrines,” wrote Sotomayor. “A statute that excludes religious organizations from an accommodation on such grounds facially favors some denominations over others.”

Thomas penned a beautiful concurring opinion, explaining to Wisconsin not only our country’s history of defending a religion’s autonomy, but the Catholic faith. Here’s an important part:

The Church understands itself to have a “three-fold” religious mission: “proclaiming the word of God,” “celebrating the sacraments,” and “exercising the ministry of charity.” Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est ¶25(a) (2005). “These duties presuppose each other and are inseparable.” Ibid. “The Church” therefore “cannot neglect the service of charity”—that is, care “for widows and orphans, prisoners, and the sick and needy of every kind”—“any more than she can neglect the Sacraments and the Word.” Id., ¶22.

Plus, even though not everyone who works for Catholic Charities is a Catholic, those in charge of the charity are Catholic.

The bishop of the diocese is the president. The vicar general, a priest, is the vice president.

The executive director does not have to be a priest.

However, the bishop appoints the vice president and executive general, meaning he is in control of the organization. He can also dismiss either one when he wants.

So even though the state and court never denied those facts, both argued and ruled that Catholic Charities does not qualify for the exemption. Thomas wrote:

Here, there is no dispute that, as a matter of church governance, the Bishop of Superior—the head of both the Diocese of Superior and Catholic Charities considers Catholic Charities and its subentities to be an “arm” of the Diocese rather than a distinct organization. Supra, at 12. In other words, Catholic Charities and its subentities are corporate entities that the Diocese has created to carry out its religious mission. It is therefore dispositive that, as the State concedes, the Diocese qualifies for the religious employer exemption. Tr. of Oral Arg. 73–74. As an arm of the Diocese from the Bishop’s perspective, Catholic Charities and its subentities must qualify as well, regardless of whether their activities, considered in isolation, would qualify as religious.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson enhanced both arguments, telling Wisconsin that the Federal Unemployment Tax Act’s text and history show that the phrase “operated primarily for religious purposes” refers “to the organization’s function, not its inspiration.”

Jackson stressed the act “turns on what an entity does, not how or why it does it.”

Jackson also pointed out that Wisconsin’s wanting to avoid “entanglement” problems does not work (emphasis mine):

What is more, a motive-focused exemption inquiry presents potential entanglement problems of its own. If taken seriously as an eligibility requirement (as opposed to a rubberstamp for any organization that professes religious motives), it would require assessing whether an entity is really motivated primarily by religion—an intrusive exploration into the hearts and minds of those who run it. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19 21 (listing evidence courts might examine to assess a nonprofit’s “true motivations”). Requiring courts to engage in the business of evaluating religious motivation is a sensitive endeavor. And here, it is unnecessary, because the church-affiliation prong already does that work. It actually serves no rational objective, as the sincerity of an entity’s religious motives has little if anything to do with the problem Congress sought to address.

Good for Jackson. I have to admit, the opinions I’ve read from her today have impressed me. She wrote the majority of the opinion for Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services.

[Image via YouTube]

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.