The Supreme Court has announced that it will take up a new religious rights case concerning whether a Catholic charitable organization in Wisconsin must pay the state's employment tax. The case revolves around the Catholic Charities Bureau in Superior, Wisconsin, and a state Supreme Court ruling that denied the organization an exemption from the tax.
The state court determined that while the work of Catholic Charities and its related organizations is motivated by Catholic teachings to assist older, disabled, and low-income individuals, it is primarily non-religious in nature. The case is expected to be argued in the spring.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of churches and religious plaintiffs in disputes with states. Lawyers representing the Wisconsin groups argue that the state court's decision infringes on their religious freedoms protected by the First Amendment. They also point out conflicting rulings by various state courts on the same issue that need resolution.
Wisconsin's Attorney General has argued against the Supreme Court's involvement, noting that the organizations receive significant funding from state and local governments, as well as federal and state Medicaid programs. He emphasized that employees do not have to be Catholic, and the services provided do not include religious training.
Catholic Charities has been paying the unemployment tax since 1972. Wisconsin law exempts church-controlled organizations from the tax if they are primarily operated for religious purposes, a standard that the state high court found Catholic Charities did not meet.
Support for Catholic Charities has come from a group of religious scholars and various religious organizations, including Catholic, Islamic, Lutheran, Jewish, and Mormon groups. On the other side, the Freedom from Religion Foundation has raised concerns that a ruling in favor of Catholic Charities could impact other religiously affiliated institutions in the state.
Catholic Charities in Superior oversees numerous programs aimed at assisting individuals in need, regardless of their religious affiliation. The case highlights the complex intersection of religious freedom, taxation, and government regulation.
