The Supreme Court has recently decided to hear the case of Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission in their 2024-2025 term. Catholic Charities Bureau, run out of the Diocese of Superior in Wisconsin, provides services to those who are poor and disadvantaged out of religious motivations. The four sub-entities are Barron County Developmental Services, Inc. (BCDS), Black River Industries, Inc. (BRI), Diversified Services, Inc. (DSI), and Headwaters, Inc. The services provided to the poor and disadvantaged range from job training to supporting individuals with disabilities. While the Bishop of the Diocese of Superior oversees CCB, employees and recipients of the organizations are not required to be of any religious faith, and the programs do not include religious training.
In March of 2024, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled whether or not the Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB) was required to pay the state’s unemployment insurance, or if they could opt to pay the Wisconsin Catholic Bishops' Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP). The court ultimately ruled that CCB was required to pay the state’s unemployment due to their services not being “religious enough.” The court argued that their work was largely charitable and not solely religious. Additionally, the court argued that in requiring CCB and its sub-entities to pay the state’s unemployment tax there was no interference with how the church runs itself and was based on neutral criteria.
CCB argued that this decision infringed upon their religious freedom under the First Amendment due to the Free Exercise Clause. In the court deciding whether or not the services done by CCB are religious (enough) or not, the court is getting involved in determining the structure and mission of a religious group, in this case, CCB.
The central issue for this case, and what the Supreme Court will be analyzing, is whether or not CCB and its sub-entities are exempt from unemployment tax due to acting primarily on religious motivations. In requiring these organizations to pay the state unemployment tax, they will be separated from the Diocese, which is the district overseen by the bishop. CCB and its sub-entities will not be exempt from paying unemployment tax altogether, rather, they would be paying into the Wisconsin Catholic Bishops' Church Unemployment Pay Program, which would not separate them from the Diocese. The court making a decision on the religious sincerity of CCB and its sub-entities, as CCB argues, will violate their Free Exercise Clause based on the court determining what deems the organization's motivations as religious, more specifically, if they are “primarily” religious.
This case has similar undertones to Cantwell v. Connecticut concerning giving the federal government the power to determine the sincerity of religious practices, a decision that is subjective to the official making the decision. Like Cantwell, public officials are in the position to pass judgment on who can and cannot exercise their religion, something that is not permissible according to the First Amendment. While the Wisconsin court argued that they were not infringing on the practices within the church, CCB, and its sub-entities argue that they are acting out of religious obligation in serving the poor and disadvantaged, putting strict religious motivations behind their actions.
In order for CCB and its sub-entities to be required to pay the state’s unemployment, the court will have determined their practices to be non-religious. While there is a question of sincerity in who can and cannot say that their practices are religious, the CCB and its organizations will be stripped of their religious autonomy. I think that in looking at how these organizations are not looking to opt out of paying unemployment tax altogether, but rather the CUPP is also of important note.
This case and the issue of this case is important since it places secular courts answering religious questions. Essentially, it should not be in the hands of the court to decide how religious a practice is. Furthermore, in deciding that these organizations are not “religious enough,” they are interfering with the structure and mission of the church. This would not only violate the organization's First Amendment right regarding the Free Exercise Clause, but potentially question the wall between church and state and the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court ruling for this case will be integral in shaping religious charitable organizations within the United States.
I think that there are valid arguments to be had from both sides. With that being said, what do you think? Given the central issue being whether CCB and its sub-entities are operated primarily for religious purposes, are CCB and its sub-entities exempt from unemployment tax because they are operated primarily for religious purposes? Is their First Amendment Right under the Free Exercise Clause being violated?
https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2024/2020ap002007.html
9 comments:
I think that the court should rule in favor of the Catholic Charities Bureau. The government determining what qualifies as "religious" creates a precedent that undermines First Amendment protections. The CCB's charitable work stems directly from their religious obligation, and they are not asking to be exempt from all tax, as they would still pay tax to their diocese. When courts are given the ability to decide religious sincerity, they become the "arbiters" of what is and isn't religious practice, which is what Cantwell v. Connecticut warned against.
I agree with Ellie; the Supreme Court should uphold CCB's First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. Requiring CCB to pay state unemployment taxes undermines their religious autonomy, compelling secular courts to evaluate religious sincerity. Serving the disadvantaged is a fundamental religious mission, and this ruling risks infringing upon religious freedom.
I agree that with the comments and the blog post. I believe that the government weighing their opinion on what is considered "religious enough" infringes on free exercise and could bring forth issues for religious minorities where their beliefs are less understood. As well, christianity holds a strong emphasis on serving those in need, so this christian organization is upholding their religious values and therefore should not pay state unemployment tax. As well, christian organizations often do much in supporting those in need, and if the court rules not in favor of the Catholic Charities Bureau, it may prevent others who have similar motives from starting more organizations like this one. And when charities help aid those in need, it does reduce the governments burden in aiding those struggling. Because of this, the government may be compelled to allow organizations that they see having weak religious motives to not be required to pay the state unemployment taxes.
I believe that the court should rule in favor of the CCB's First Amendment Rights, citing the free exercise clause. This case in particular is one in which you don't want the court having jurisdiction to decide religious sincerity. Doing this sets a precedent and allows for a slippery slope into governmental oversight of religion.
The idea of the government determining whether an organization’s work is “religious enough” is deeply problematic. Catholic Charities Bureau, though rooted in the Christian mission of serving those in need, provides essential, secular services that benefit the community at large. Forcing them to pay state unemployment tax based on a subjective assessment of their religious motivations not only infringes on their Free Exercise rights but could also discourage similar faith-based organizations from pursuing their charitable missions. This kind of judicial overreach risks blurring the line between church and state and may have broader implications for religious minorities whose practices might not fit neatly into conventional categories of “religious.” What are your thoughts on how this balance should be managed?
I think this case raises serious concerns about government overreach into religious autonomy. The state determining whether Catholic Charities Bureau’s work is "religious enough" sets a troubling precedent for who gets to define faith in practice. Religion is not defined in the constitution and charity is a fundamental expression of many religions so denying its religious nature risks infringing on the Free Exercise Clause. If CCB operates under the Diocese with religious motivation, they should have the right to participate in CUPP instead of being forced into the state system just because they don't conform to the governments idea of religion. Although I do understand the opposing argument the bottom line to me is what/who defines religion and more importantly that it should not be the government.
I agree with these other comments. The state deciding what is "religious enough" sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to government regulation of religious practices. The court should rule in favor of the CCB due to the danger that could come about from ruling against it. If the CCB is ruled against, then other religious organizations would be at risk of further government regulation based on how sincere they are.
I agree, allowing the government too much power over what religions are valid creates a slippery slope that can cause many people to be denied of their free exercise rights. While I do believe that sincerity is an important part of practicing religion, constitutionally it is near impossible to place restrictions on religion and still operate under equality of religion. The whole point of the clause is to protect minorities and those being questioned for their beliefs.
I think it is dangerous if the government is deciding what is and is not religious enough. The government operates on a separation of church and state framework, and having the government regulate religious practices in this matter would be a violation of that standard.
Post a Comment