Opponents of Catholic Charities in Wisconsin Case Stumble Ahead of Supreme Court Oral Argument

Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission

​When the government decides which religious practices qualify as truly “religious” and which do not, it is such a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that it is practically parody. Yet, that’s exactly what happened in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, set to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in a few weeks.
 
These charities have reason to be optimistic. The Supreme Court has in recent years cast a skeptical eye on restrictions on the free exercise of religion. And if the early briefs filed against these charities are any indication, the case against them is very weak.
 
The Case
Catholic Charities Bureau is the 100-year-old social ministry arm of the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin. The organization wishes to be exempted from the state’s unemployment program – allowed for organizations that are “operated primarily for religious purposes” – in order to participate in the separate but similar Wisconsin Bishops’ Church Unemployment Pay Program. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against the group, finding that Catholic Charities’ activities did not constitute “typical religious activities.” It further found that because Catholic Charities’ mission “can be provided by organizations of either religious or secular motivations,” its services are not inherently religious.
 
What’s at Stake
Taken literally, the Wisconsin standard could mean a religious service is not religious if someone else can light a candle or burn incense. This standard puts government in the position of telling religious organizations how to make fine theological distinctions. Unless reversed, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has opened a gaping legal vulnerability for the free exercise of religion.
 
Adjudicating an organization’s degree of religiosity places courts squarely within the realm of “excessive entanglement” prohibited by the First Amendment, while also subjecting religious groups to wrongheaded interpretations of their activities. Catholics, for example, are compelled by scripture to aid the needy.
 
Jumbled Arguments Against the Charities
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on March 31. Ahead of that hearing, several groups have filed amicus briefs in opposition to Catholic Charities’ position.
 
One of those, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, argues that fact-based inquiries into an organization’s activities are commonplace and do not constitute excessive entanglement of the state with religion. Yet, FFRF conveniently elides the reality of what such fact-based inquiries would entail. To quote dissenting justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, such arguments would place courts in the “constitutionally tenuous position of second-guessing the religious significance and character of a nonprofit’s actions.”
 
Many courts, recognizing just how sticky these wickets are, accordingly focus on whether an organization’s activities are motivated by its sincerely held religious beliefs. It’s a holistic test that is far preferable to adjudicating what is “typical” for a religious behavior. “When you give a banquet,” Jesus said, “invite the poor, the crippled, the lame and the blind and you will be blessed.” Providing in-home health care, housing, and childcare services – no less than banquets – often does not include explicit proselytizing. But these acts are still religiously motivated activities.
 
We often align with the American Civil Liberties Union but find ourselves on opposite sides here. The ACLU is concerned about opening a floodgate of implications in applying the religious motive test. ACLU fears that a host of religion-adjacent organizations will also seek to opt out of unemployment taxes, prompting legislatures to crack down on exemptions. This is a reach. Any reasoned investigation of the present case would lead to the conclusion that charity is inherent to the Catholic faith. An analysis of whether a hardware store affiliated with a synagogue meets the exemption criteria would doubtless lead to a different conclusion.
 
A third amicus brief by American Atheists Inc., is a hodgepodge of mischaracterization and speculation. This brief seems more interested in adjudicating the very existence of religious exemptions rather than the test at the heart of this case. They argue that Catholic Charities’ position “violates the Establishment Clause by making a tax exemption contingent solely on a profession of religious belief,” mischaracterizing both Catholic Charities’ practices and the Supreme Court’s opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, which plainly allowed tax exemptions for religious organizations when offered in the spirit of “benevolent neutrality.”
 
American Atheists goes on to ascribe nefarious and unfounded motives to Catholic Charities, suggesting the group wants states to “treat unemployed workers differently based on whether or not they chose to work for charities that espouse – even nominally – a religious motivation for their efforts.” This turns the law on its head, judging the religious character of an organization by its employees, not its associational doctrine.
 
Again, American Atheists seems focused on undermining the very premise of tax exemptions for religious organizations, which are already recognized as constitutional. The issue at hand is the appropriate test for determining religious character – not whether exemptions should exist in the first place.
 
American Atheists further makes the odd and speculative argument that Catholic Charities’ position would somehow prompt the state to use its taxation power to coerce professions of religious belief. We disagree. States are highly motivated by revenue, and it seems unlikely that they would seek to further expand tax exemptions in order to prop up one religion or another. In that extreme scenario, a governmental party would not survive one day in court. 
 
Most important is a widening lower court split on what constitutes “typical” religious practice. That is the wrong metric. It is clear that for a Catholic, charity is central to the free exercise of religion. If you have any doubts on that score, we refer you to the words of our expert witness quoted above.

DONATE & HELP US PROTECT YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS