SCOTUS Hands Catholic Charities a Religious Freedom Win

In a crucial and unanimous decision in favor of a Catholic generosity, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a triumph for spiritual liberty on Thursday.

One Catholic volunteer managed to bring together all the justices in a concurring opinion, despite the fact that it is very difficult to find a theme on which all the SCOTUS judges can believe, from extreme centrists like Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito to extreme liberals like Ketanji Brown Jackson. In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, Sotomayor attempted to force the volunteer to give certain income from which state-religious companies are free.

The country’s Supreme Court was bad to have recently decided that the Catholic Charities Bureau did never “operate mainly for spiritual purposes,” the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, per Sotomayor’s mind. The Wisconsin state government also violated the First Amendment’s freedom of religion guarantee. The fairness authored the following:

Specific religious organizations are exempt from paying unpaid unemployment compensation income under Wisconsin law. Non-profit organizations that are “operated mostly for religious reasons” and that are “operated, supervised, controlled, or largely supported by a cathedral, convention, or organization of churches” are exempt from this law. Wis. Stat. §108.02 ( 15 ) ( h ) ( 2 ). As businesses run by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, petitioners from Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., and four of its subentities, sought this deduction.

The Wisconsin state Supreme Court, in Sotomayor’s opinion, violated the constitution’s right to freedom of religion. &nbsp,

Read moreover: Tiananmen Square Anniversary: Chinese Americans Demand U.S. Protest Gun Rights

She described the First Amendment’s view by the Court in this instance:

The First Amendment forbids religious freedom from the government and imposes strict scrutiny on any state-sponsored religious preference. By distinguishing between religions based on theological lines, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s interpretation of 108.02 ( 15 ) ( h ) ( 2 ) imposes a denominational preference. In the end, petitioners ‘ eligibility for the exemption depends on inherently religious choices, such as whether to proselytize or to serve only co-religionists in charitable work, as opposed to” secular criteria” that “happen to have a “different impact” on various religious organizations.

Religious liberty may be protected. As we have seen in recent times, radical leftists have frequently attacked, sued, and vilified Christian hospitals, schools, businesses, and churches for a variety of factors. &nbsp,

Representatives from the Biden administration, including older Joe himself, sued and harassed Catholic nuns over their opposition to using contraception. Kamala Harris asserted that she didn’t support any spiritual pro-choice. The Biden presidency attempted to persuade Christian doctors to perform trans surgeries. Since the overthrow of Roe, extreme pregnancy activists have attacked dozens of churches. The risk to religious freedom is genuine, and the Supreme Court ruled on the right foot in this latest decision.

Please support PJ Media’s liberal reporting on court decisions and legal rights. Use the discount code FIGHT&nbsp to get&nbsp, 60 % off&nbsp, and meet PJ Media VIP to get your VIP account.

Source credit