Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a significant religious autonomy case. Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission centers on an unconstitutional test created by the Wisconsin Supreme Court to analyze whether the activities of religious organizations are truly religious.
A majority of the justices seem poised to strike down the unconstitutional ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court for discriminating against certain religions and inserting the government into religious matters in which it should not be entangling itself.
The ERLC joined religious liberty advocates in filing an amicus brief before the Supreme Court outlining why the justices must overturn the new, unconstitutional test created by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and uphold vital religious liberty protections for churches and faith-based entities.
What is the religious autonomy case about?
Catholic Charities Bureau is a ministry arm of the Diocese of Superior of the Catholic Church charged with serving the poor and the disadvantaged.
- In 2016, Catholic Charities Bureau requested a religious exemption from the Wisconsin Unemployment Insurance Program tax so it could pay into a Bishop-sponsored unemployment program aligned with their religious beliefs.
- Despite the bureau being under the direct supervision of the Catholic Church, the Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Board denied this request because they determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau’s activities were not “typical” religious activity.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling violates:
- First Amendment protections,
- long-standing judicial doctrines,
- and legal precedent.
If the test is allowed to stand, it will become a new standard that religious organizations must meet to count as religious enough to receive tax-exempt status. The ramifications of this ruling would grant the government unprecedented levels of authority to intervene in church matters, including the authority to determine what is and what is not considered a truly religious activity.
In our brief, the ERLC and partners argue that the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling:
- Violates the First Amendment principle of church autonomy, which prevents the government from determining “the validity, meaning, or importance of an organization’s beliefs and practices,”
- Infringes upon churches and religious organizations right to freely organize their work according to whatever structure they deem best,
- And establishes government-approved ways for churches to exercise their faith.
What was argued before the justices in the religious autonomy case?
Catholic Charities Bureau, represented by the Becket Fund Vice President Eric Rassbach, and Deputy Solicitor General Curtis Gannon for the United States Department of Justice:
- Rassbach argued that the Wisconsin Supreme Court made its distinction of religious vs. secular activities along theological lines, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly prohibited as violating the First Amendment.
- As Deputy Solicitor General Gannon argued, “I think that the second-guessing what counts as inherently religious is just something that courts shouldn’t be in the business of doing.” Furthermore, Rassbach said it is problematic for there to be a list of judicially accepted religious activities, as the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling creates.
- Justice Alito focused on Wisconsin’s proselytization requirement in order to receive the exemption. Proselytization is not supported by the Catholic Church because it conditions a service based upon performing a religious act (e.g., requiring someone attend a church service before receiving a bowl of soup at a soup kitchen).
Wisconsin, represented by Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Colin Roth:
- Many justices were extremely skeptical of Roth’s argument that these limitations on the exemption are to prevent government entanglement in religious matters.
- Roth admitted that if Catholic Charities were to be incorporated under the Catholic Church, it would be eligible for the tax exemption, to which Justice Thomas rightly responded, “What’s the difference? If the function is exactly the same, but it’s a separate entity, what’s the difference? Religiously?”
- Even Justice Kagan pointed out, “I thought it was pretty fundamental that we don’t treat some religions better than other religions, and we certainly don’t do it based on the content of . . . religious doctrine,” highlighting the blatant discrimination in the Wisconsin ruling.
What happens next in the religious autonomy case?
The Supreme Court will issue a ruling on this case before the end of its term in June. The ERLC will continue monitoring for developments in this case and provide a comprehensive overview of the decision when it is published.
Why does this religious autonomy case matter to Southern Baptists?
Southern Baptists are committed champions of religious liberty and ensuring believers can freely organize and express their faith without government interference.
- As outlined in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, “a free church in a free state is the Christian ideal.”
- Furthermore, in the 2024 resolution “On Defending Religious Liberty,” Southern Baptists expressed they would like to “limit government infringement of religious expression.”
Miles Mullin, ERLC vice president, expounded on this to Baptist Press:
It is not right for the government to prescribe religious practice or compel a religious group to conform to its standards of what qualifies as ‘real’ religion. In fact, the state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state of Wisconsin is doing just that in its determination that the mercy ministry of the Catholic Diocese of Superior did not meet its standards for ‘real’ religious activity, and thus disqualified them for a tax exemption.
Southern Baptists work collaboratively through the denomination’s entities to fulfill the Great Commission and conduct ministry work throughout the world. This case has real implications for that work. Regardless of the type of ministry, churches and religious organizations must be free to organize and exercise their work in whatever way they determine is consistent with their deeply held religious convictions without fearing that the government will judge that they are not religious enough. It is fundamentally wrong for the government to dictate to a church or a religious organization how they should conduct their ministry and structure their organization.
