
On December 13, 2024, the Supreme Court accepted its first case involving religion in almost two years, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission.
At issue in Catholic Charities is “[w]hether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.”
In the underlying dispute the Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed an order that the aid the Diocese of Superior offered individuals with developmental and mental health disabilities through four sub-entities were not religious activities at the heart of the Church’s mission because staff members do not try to convert the needy to Catholicism. Accordingly, Catholic Charities had to pay unemployment taxes.
Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission
Catholic Charities traces its origins to 1972 when Wisconsin exempted religious organizations from paying unemployment taxes if, as Catholic Charities did, they provide coverage through their own funds. However, in the same year, Wisconsin’s Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations denied Catholic Charities’ requested exemption from paying unemployment taxes because officials regarded “its operations as ‘charitable,’ ‘educational,’ and ‘rehabilitative,’ not ‘religious.’”
After state officials again refused to exempt Catholic Charities from paying unemployment taxes in 2016, it unsuccessfully initiated litigation which reached the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
In its 50-page, four-to-three, majority opinion the Supreme Court of Wisconsin’ affirmed that Catholic Charities had to pay unemployment taxes even in conceding that “its statement of philosophy indicates that it has ‘since 1917 been providing services to the poor and disadvantaged as expression of the social ministry of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Superior’ and that its ‘purpose … is to be an effective sign of the charity of Christ.’”
Moreover, the court accepted “at face value” that the services Catholic Charities and its sub-entities provide “are based on gospel values and the principles of the Catholic Social Teachings [to] carry on the redeeming work of our Lord by reflecting gospel values and the moral teaching of the church.”
Nonetheless, the court thought that because the services Catholic Charities and its sub-agencies offered were “primarily charitable and secular” they were not exempt from having to pay unemployment taxes insofar as they were “not operated primarily for religious purposes.” The court reached this conclusion because agency staff “neither attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials to program participants or employees, [adding that a]lthough not required, these would be strong indications that the activities are primarily religious in nature.”
A 73-page dissent chastised the court, opening with the reminder to “[r]ender therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” The dissent excoriated the majority because it “rewrites the statute to deprive Catholic Charities of the tax exemption, rendering unto the state that which the law says belongs to the church,” impermissibly entangling itself in religious affairs.
A brief one paragraph dissent explained that “I would not reach the constitutional questions and do not sign onto every point in the analysis, [but] I agree with the construction of the statute in thoughtful dissent.”
Dissatisfied with the result, Catholic Charities appealed to the Supreme Court with the help of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit, public-interest law firm, which agreed to hear the case.
Judicial hubris on display
One troubling aspect of Catholic Charities was the narrowness of Wisconsin’s approach in defining what constitutes religious activity that the Diocese of Superior, and by extension other church outreach services, offer the needy, denying it to an exemption from state unemployment taxes. More troubling is that secular jurists took it on themselves to interpret what qualifies as being at the heart of the Church’s mission.
In so doing the court impermissibly entangled Wisconsin’s public officials in the Catholic Church’s internal affairs, violating the First Amendment’s prohibition, applicable to states, that the government “shall make no … laws prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.
When dealing with matters of faith, it is important for courts to review judicial precedent carefully on issues beyond their expertise. For example, in interpreting the reach of Title VII’s ministerial exception in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the Supreme Court emphasized that officials of religious institutions, rather than public agencies, alone have the authority to determine who qualifies as a minister. Applying this principle, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin should have deferred to officials of Catholic Charities as to whether the services they provide exemplify Gospel values because it was in no position to make such a decision. Consequently, the dissent described the holding as “a profound overreach of the judicial power.”
In Catholic Charities the Supreme Court of Wisconsin displayed marked judicial hubris in rejecting the testimony of religious officials that the services they offer are consistent with Gospel values to care for the needy by doing more than just talking in light of Church teaching that faith without works is dead. As noted, the court exceeded its authority in not deferring to Church leaders who explained that serving the needy involves affording them aid not premised on their converting to Catholicism.
By intruding on matters of faith it was unqualified to address, the court ignored that Catholic Church social teachings never conditioned giving aid on accepting its teaching.
The outcome in Catholic Charities is ironic at best, hypocritical at worst, in light of how critics of religion continue to rely on the failed metaphor of the “wall of separation of Church and State.” Opponents of religious freedom continue to rely on this euphemism, popularized by Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Convention, but which actually originated in 1644 with Roger Williams who called for “a wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world,” when issues such as aid to faith-based schools, their students, and parents arise.
Instead of maintaining a healthy separation on a question beyond its expertise, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin intruded on the ministry of Catholic Charities as it cared for the needy.
At the heart of its misguided rationale the Supreme Court of Wisconsin went so far as to deem that because Catholic Charities and its sub-entities were not “operated primarily for religious purposes” [they were] thus not exempt from making contributions to the state unemployment insurance system.” The court thereby denied Catholic Charities the opportunity to join the program of the Catholic Churches in Wisconsin providing similar unemployment protection.
Here the court ignored the fact that the separation imbedded in the First Amendment is designed to protect religion from state interference rather than the other way around. It deferred to public officials rather than religious leaders who work with the needy as to whether they were exercising the Church’s mission.
Given how egregiously the Supreme Court of Wisconsin intruded into the internal affairs of Catholic Charities, it is highly unlikely its judgment will survive on appeal. Although the Supreme Court has yet to set a date for oral arguments, they are likely to occur in this Spring, with a ruling before the end of its term in late June or early July 2025. Stay tuned.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The State (and here I am referring to all civic government) simply CANNOT define what the mission of ANY religion is. That prerogative remains in the sole hands of those in authority IN THE CHURCH.
The State CANNOT declare that the sole mission of the Catholic Church is to convert everyone to the Catholic Church. Why, even Pope Bergoglio himself doesn’t care about converting the hearts of heathens to accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. And if the Pope in Rome doesn’t seem to feel a need to convert the pagans who frequent the Vatican, how can Catholic Charities in Wisconsin be expected to? The litigants in this case ought to point this out.
I am wondering why Catholic Charities, in providing aid that does not depend upon conversion to The Catholic Faith, would not at least include an invitation to those they provide aid to , to “Come and See The Goodness Of The Lord”, as The Fullness of Charity, Is The Truth Of Love, Our Savior, Jesus The Christ.
One of the main problems with Catholic Charities is its support of open borders and its help to people to enter illegally into the United States. By definition, anyone who enters his or her neighbors land without permission shows no concern for his or her neighbor in addition to violating the law of course. Reason enough to be expelled. But CC actually helps these bad neighbors to enter the United States and stay here!
The USA, as a secular nation with many religions and no religion, has the competing Rights of freedom from established religion and freedom from government interference in free expression. These must remain in a state of tense, disputed balance because the many religions and lack of religion of American citizens presents a froth of competing and often mutually-exclusive Rights.
The problem in this specific is the tax exemption. Governments must levy taxes as Constitutionally as possible, and in allowing a tax exemption where otherwise an entity would pay taxes is in essence using tax dollars to help fund that entity, just cutting out the middle-man of the IRS. Why collect taxes just to give the money back? So we have tax exemptions.
Hopefully the problem becomes clear now: by exempting an entity, has the government violated the Establishment Clause? This is not a simple Free Expression issue because those exempted tax dollars are not the entity’s but rather those dollars belong to the USA.
We must remember that freedom is literally not free. Taxes are the price we must regularly pay to maintain a free nation. A nation free for everyone, not just Catholics.
WEll, I say we close all the Catholic schools, foster care agencies , food pantries and hospitals, etc. Then dump it all on the secular lovers and see how the “taxpayers” like it when their taxes explode as they struggle to replace those Catholic run services.
This garbage is nothing more than a blatant attempt to penalize Catholic-run agencies because the state does not like what we stand for in terms of abortion and are looking for ANY petty way they can to hurt the church..So they will try to tax us to death. It is beyond disgusting.
The Catholic Church in fact makes a POINT to run schools, hospitals, food pantries and foster care agencies in an effort to do as Jesus has taught us by loving our neighbors and BY EXAMPLE put Catholic belief into action. You need not hit people over the head with a direct solicitation to convert. If they have half a brain, those we help will see it.
The sad truth of the matter is that most offices of Catholic Charities have next to nothing to do with the Catholic Church (like the vast majority of allegedly Catholic colleges). Therefore, I would not be surprised if the Court found that there is no reason to classify those institutions as worthy of First Amendment protection.
Father Peter: you are absolutely correct. I took over as the Director of Catholic Charities for my diocese back in 2006. One of the first initiatives I took was to convene a retreat for all of my Catholic Charities staff. I hired a facilitator to come in for this day-long event that I entitled, “What does the ‘Catholic’ in Catholic Charities mean. I was shocked when I had a major rebellion on my hands. The temerity I had at even asking such a question, as if even raising the question was an assault on the staff’s sensibility. I left after four years and when I resigned I told my bishop that first, I never came closer to losing my faith than I did working for the Church and, second, I found more sanity in the psychiatric hospital I worked at for 29 years than I did working for the diocese.
Father Peter, I appreciate your comment. It extends an invitation to all Catholic Charities to first and foremost be a Catholic Charity, and secondarily an organization that serves all humanity in their various focus areas. We have for too long forgotten that when the Catholic Church extends its hand in service, it must remain a Catholic Hand. If that Catholic Hand is rejected, it signals that the specific charitable work is being undertaken by someone else, and the Church must seek another area where it can humbly stand as a witness of Jesus Christ, His Holy Church, and acknowledge whom we serve.
Absolutely, Father Stravinskas,
The Catholic Charities in the Diocese in which I live has started an ad campaign. They quote Mr. Rogers, CS Lewis, CK Chesterton, etc. (not the Gospels), and talk about feeling good when teaching children about bullying and stalking. They posted celebratory messages about Kwanzaa and Hanukkah, and the Christmas messages included Santa and children with presents. Not one Nativity image.
Is it ironic that the head of this Catholic Charities is a nun? I don’t have an answer for that myself.
While volunteering at the food pantry, I was asked to stop chatting with the “customers,” especially as the covid rules took over. No one was allowed inside and we had to keep ’em moving, whether they needed personal support or not.
If the Wisconsin Catholic Charities is anything like ours, I say let them pay taxes unless and until they become Catholic again.
My experience with Catholic Charities in a former diocese was pretty disappointing. They organized a statewide parish visit to our state legislature, I guess to lobby for issues affecting Catholics or Catholic values.
I identified more with the legislators who opposed the social justice solutions Catholic Charities championed that day.
It’s probably unfair, but I came away with the impression that the more permanently needy, unresourceful, victims of oppression the more job security for that office of Catholic Charities. It doesn’t incentivize them to find real solutions.
Luckily, Since this matter is of law it will be decided on that basis. J O’Neill JD