Supreme Court Rules Wisconsin Unconstitutionally Discriminated Against Christian Charity in Landmark Decision
Supreme Court rules unanimously in favor of Catholic charity, affirming that religious distinctions cannot violate the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court delivered a significant victory to religious institutions on Thursday, ruling unanimously that Wisconsin's method of determining tax exemption eligibility for faith-based organizations violated the First Amendment. The case, brought forward by the Wisconsin-based Catholic Charities Bureau, challenged the state’s denial of an unemployment tax exemption on the grounds that the group’s activities were considered "primarily charitable and secular" rather than religious.
In a forceful opinion authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the justices found that the state’s approach resulted in an “unnecessary entanglement” with religion, cautioning that the government cannot selectively apply exemptions by parsing the religious nature of organizations. "When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny," Sotomayor wrote.
The Court held that Wisconsin’s criteria failed this standard. Because the state had “transgressed that principle without the tailoring necessary to survive such scrutiny,” the judgment was reversed and the case returned to lower courts for proceedings consistent with the new guidance.
This decision may set a precedent for other states, potentially expanding the scope of tax exemptions for religious nonprofits across the country. Legal experts predict ripple effects reaching well beyond Wisconsin, opening the door for similar organizations nationwide to seek broader protections and exemptions under the First Amendment.
The dispute originated when the Catholic Charities Bureau was ordered to pay into Wisconsin’s unemployment system after a lower court determined that their work—serving and employing non-Catholics—meant their actions were not primarily religious. Attorneys for the organization contended that this amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and disregarded their stated mission to advance “gospel values and the moral teaching of the church.”
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s ongoing trend toward protecting religious institutions from what they see as government interference or discrimination. Many observers view Thursday’s decision as part of a broader pattern of recent rulings that favor religious organizations’ ability to access public benefits and exemptions, even as they deliver services that are open to all segments of society.
