Supreme Court blasts discrimination against Catholic Charities

The Supreme Court has, in a unanimous decision, blasted the discrimination set up by the state of Wisconsin when it banned Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior from participating in the church’s less-costly unemployment compensation program.

The 9-0 decision means that Catholic Charities now can avoid being ordered to participate in the state’s own less efficient and more costly plan.

The state based its discrimination on the fact that the charities programs offers help to the poor and needy in ways that were not “typical” religious actions.

“At the heart of Catholic Charities’ ministry is Christ’s call to care for the least of our brothers and sisters, without condition and without exception,” said Bishop James Powers, bishop of the Diocese of Superior. “We’re grateful the court unanimously recognized that improving the human condition by serving the poor is part of our religious exercise and has allowed us to continue serving those in need throughout our diocese and beyond.”

Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion, deciding Wisconsin violated the Constitution by imposing “a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological choices.”

The ruling also noted “whether to express and inculcate religious doctrine through worship, proselytization, or religious education when performing charitable work are, again, fundamentally theological choices driven by the content of different religious doctrines.”

According to Becket, which represented the religious organization, “Most Catholic dioceses have a social ministry arm that serves those in need. Catholic Charities carries out this important work for the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, by helping the disabled, elderly, and those living in poverty—regardless of their faith. This belief that ministry to those in need should not be limited to Catholics flows directly from Catholic Social Teaching and is embodied in the Church’s ‘corporal works of mercy’—which include feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless.”

Wisconsin law exempts nonprofits that run primarily for religious purposes from the state’s unemployment compensation program. The leftists on the state Supreme Court, however, rejected that standard because Catholic Charities serves everyone, not just Catholics.

“Wisconsin shouldn’t have picked this fight in the first place,” said Eric Rassbach, of Becket. “It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn’t religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion. Today, the Court resoundingly reaffirmed a fundamental truth of our constitutional order: the First Amendment protects all religious beliefs, not just those the government favors.”

BIG WIN for Religious Liberty

The Wisconsin Supreme Court tried to deny Catholic Charities a tax exemption offered to ALL religious institutions because Catholic Charities is willing to provide charity to non-Catholics.

They singled out Catholicism, and SCOTUS unanimously… pic.twitter.com/19O3izRoAW

— TJ Roberts (@realTJRoberts) June 5, 2025

BREAKING: In a 9-0 victory, the Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin cannot discriminate against Catholic Charities Bureau’s care for the poor, the elderly, and the disabled. pic.twitter.com/qG66MP9dpM

— BECKET (@becketfund) June 5, 2025

BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court STRIKES DOWN Liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision that denied a tax exemption to a Catholic Charities chapter, a victory for Catholics…9-0.

SCOTUS ruled that a 1st Amendment violation occurred. pic.twitter.com/dWf8GddFbY

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 5, 2025

The decision said Wisconsin’s arguments fail because, “the State has not met its burden to show that the law’s application is narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. Wisconsin contends that the exemption advances two principal interests. First, it argues that the law serves a compelling state interest in ensuring unemployment coverage for its citizens. The State, however, has failed to demonstrate that the theological lines drawn by the statute are narrowly tailored to advance that interest, particularly as applied to petitioners.

“Indeed, petitioners operate their own unemployment compensation system, which provides benefits largely equivalent to the state system. The distinctions drawn by Wisconsin’s regime, moreover, are underinclusive, exempting religious entities that provide similar services (i.e., without proselytizing or serving only co-religionists) when the work is done directly by a church. Second, the State asserts an interest in avoiding entanglement with employment decisions based on religious doctrine. Resolving misconduct disputes for employees tasked with inculcating religious faith, the State argues, may require it to decide whether those employees complied with religious doctrine. The lines drawn by the exemption, however, are overinclusive in relation to that interest, for they operate at the organizational level, covering employees that do and do not inculcate religious doctrine in equal measure. This poor fit between the State’s asserted interests and the distinctions drawn cannot satisfy strict scrutiny.”