The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether Wisconsin was free to deny a tax exemption to a Catholic charity on the grounds that its activities were not primarily religious.
The court has been notably receptive to arguments from religious groups, and the new case will give the justices another opportunity to explore the limits of the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty.
The case concerns a Wisconsin law that exempts religious groups from state unemployment taxes so long as they are “operated primarily for religious purposes.”
Catholic Charities Bureau, the social ministry of the Catholic Diocese in Superior, Wis., has said its mission is to provide “services to the poor and disadvantaged as an expression of the social ministry of the Catholic Church.” State officials determined that the charity did not qualify for the exemption because it “provides essentially secular services and engages in activities that are not religious per se.”
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
The Wisconsin Supreme Court said it accepted the charity’s contention that its services were “based on Gospel values and the principles of the Catholic social teachings.” But the court ruled that the group’s activities were “primarily charitable and secular” and did not “attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials to program participants or employees.”
The court added that “both employment with the organizations and services offered by the organizations are open to all participants regardless of religion.”
Eric Rassbach, a lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the charity, questioned that reasoning. “Wisconsin is trying to make sure no good deed goes unpunished,” he said in a statement Friday. “Penalizing Catholic Charities for serving Catholics and non-Catholics alike is ridiculous and wrong.”
The charity asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in, saying that the Constitution does not allow the government “to second-guess the religious decisions of religious bodies.”
It would be absurd, the charity’s petition seeking review added, to say that “it doesn’t matter if Catholic Charities gives a cup of water in Jesus’s name, because nonreligious charities offer cups of water too.”
State officials urged the court to deny review. “Courts routinely deny religious tax exemptions to entities that assert religious motivations,” their brief said, “without overly entangling themselves in religious matters.”
Proponents of the separation of church and state said a ruling in favor of the charity could have a sweeping impact, eventually including organizations like Catholic hospitals and universities.
“The next stage of this is getting these large employers to be exempt,” said Patrick Elliott, legal director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
The key question, he said, should not be whether a charity’s motivations are religious, but whether participation in the tax system in some way hampers its religious expression.
“The exemption is there to protect churches from interference, and now they’re taking it and running with it and saying it covers anything religiously affiliated,” he said. “It’s not a good system if a religious entity can just opt themselves out even when it’s not interfering with their religious practice.”
The court has been notably receptive to arguments from religious groups, and the new case will give the justices another opportunity to explore the limits of the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty.
The case concerns a Wisconsin law that exempts religious groups from state unemployment taxes so long as they are “operated primarily for religious purposes.”
Catholic Charities Bureau, the social ministry of the Catholic Diocese in Superior, Wis., has said its mission is to provide “services to the poor and disadvantaged as an expression of the social ministry of the Catholic Church.” State officials determined that the charity did not qualify for the exemption because it “provides essentially secular services and engages in activities that are not religious per se.”
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
The Wisconsin Supreme Court said it accepted the charity’s contention that its services were “based on Gospel values and the principles of the Catholic social teachings.” But the court ruled that the group’s activities were “primarily charitable and secular” and did not “attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials to program participants or employees.”
The court added that “both employment with the organizations and services offered by the organizations are open to all participants regardless of religion.”
Eric Rassbach, a lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the charity, questioned that reasoning. “Wisconsin is trying to make sure no good deed goes unpunished,” he said in a statement Friday. “Penalizing Catholic Charities for serving Catholics and non-Catholics alike is ridiculous and wrong.”
The charity asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in, saying that the Constitution does not allow the government “to second-guess the religious decisions of religious bodies.”
It would be absurd, the charity’s petition seeking review added, to say that “it doesn’t matter if Catholic Charities gives a cup of water in Jesus’s name, because nonreligious charities offer cups of water too.”
State officials urged the court to deny review. “Courts routinely deny religious tax exemptions to entities that assert religious motivations,” their brief said, “without overly entangling themselves in religious matters.”
Proponents of the separation of church and state said a ruling in favor of the charity could have a sweeping impact, eventually including organizations like Catholic hospitals and universities.
“The next stage of this is getting these large employers to be exempt,” said Patrick Elliott, legal director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
The key question, he said, should not be whether a charity’s motivations are religious, but whether participation in the tax system in some way hampers its religious expression.
“The exemption is there to protect churches from interference, and now they’re taking it and running with it and saying it covers anything religiously affiliated,” he said. “It’s not a good system if a religious entity can just opt themselves out even when it’s not interfering with their religious practice.”
