The Wisconsin Supreme Court has decided that Catholic Charities ‘ social service ministries are not” churchy” enough, as though that is the courts ‘ ( or government’s ) sole discretion to decide. The U.S. Supreme Court justices appear to be wary as well, having voted to examine the case. The court will hear oral arguments from the state company tasked with administering the employment insurance program on March 31. The Supreme Court hears roughly 80 situations per word, or 1 % of those that request evaluation, and many of them deal with issues specific to the federal government. In other words, it’s uncommon for a circumstance from Wisconsin to catch the attention of the great court.
Yet this one did it, and for good reason. The Catholic Church in Wisconsin’s Northwoods is a unified appearance of the church’s mission to provide for the sick, the old, the bad, and the defenseless in our populations, as Christ did and instructed his followers to do. Individuals with physical and developmental disability are served by the specific company applications in this case. The state Department of Workforce Development officials ultimately decided that these programs did not qualify for the tax deduction for religious institutions because they did not distribute Gospel sections or need Mass presence.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Decision
The Wisconsin Supreme Court was required to address the question in both a matter of state statutory interpretation ( did the legislature’s enactment really mean that the department had to tax church-run social service programs )? and constitutional law ( does the First Amendment permit that, if applicable )? ).
Surprisingly, the state’s high court’s left-leaning majority responded to both questions with “yes.” The court first determined that these ministries were not “operated primarily for religious purposes,” as required by state statute, because the organization’s “activities” were not “religious” in nature, such as “worship services, religious outreach, ceremony, or religious education.” In other words, according to the court, living out Christ’s command to clothe the naked, care for the sick, and visit the imprisoned ( Matthew 25: 36 ) does not qualify as “religious activity.”
Justice Rebecca Bradley doesn’t back down in her dissention. She asserts that” the majority excessively enangles the government in spiritual affairs, requiring courts to determine what religious practices are sufficiently religious under the majority’s unconstitutional test.” The U.S. Supreme Court appears to have taken that dissented opinion seriously because its decision to grant discretionary review reveals a general level of concern about the majority opinion ( the court does not typically review opinions that are obviously correct ).
A Coalition of Faith Communities Criticizes the Law
A wide range of faith communities from all different religious backgrounds have spoken out at the court to criticize the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision. For instance, everyone in one brief includes members of BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Southern Baptist Convention, as well as the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. In other words, every faith community has an interest in ensuring the freedom and space necessary to carry out its charitable ideals, whatever they may be.
Plus, considering the diversity of the faiths cited above, determining whether a religious organization’s activities appear sufficiently” churchy” puts smaller, less well-known faiths at a severe disadvantage. By making a judgment call based on a flexible, non-rigorous, non-exhaustive list of potential factors set forth in the majority opinion, judges and bureaucrats shouldn’t be in a position to evaluate a faith-based organization’s activities. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s open-ended “test” is an invitation to arbitrary and inconsistent decision-making, as Justice Antonin Scalia once said, as a “law of rules” is a law of rules. The U.S. Supreme Court will likely overturn the high court’s decision and ensure that all ministries ‘ First Amendment rights are protected.
The Chicago-based public-interest law firm Center for American Rights is led by Daniel Suhr.
