Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Oral Argument: Catholic Charities Bureau v. WI Labor Review Comm'n | Case No. 24-154 | Date Argued: 3/31/25
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Oral Argument: Catholic Charities Bureau v. WI Labor Review Comm'n | Case No. 24-154 | Date Argued: 3/31/25
Case Info: Catholic Charities Bureau v. WI Labor Review Comm'n | Case No. 24-154 | Date Argued: 3/31/25
Link to Docket: Here.
Background:
Wisconsin exempts from its state unemployment tax system certain religious organizations that are "operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches" and that are also "operated primarily for religious purposes."
Petitioners are Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior and several sub-entities. Although all agree Catholic Charities is controlled by a church-the Diocese of Superior-the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Catholic Charities is not "operated primarily for religious purposes" and thus does not qualify for the tax exemption. Specifically, the court held that Catholic Charities' activities are not "typical" religious activities because Catholic Charities serves and employs non-Catholics, Catholic Charities does not "attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith," and its services to the poor and needy could also be provided by secular organizations.
Questions Presented:
- Does a state violate the First Amendment's Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior?
- In addressing federal constitutional challenges, may state courts require proof of unconstitutionality "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
Holding: The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s application of § 108.02(15)(h)(2) to petitioners violates the First Amendment.
Result: Reversed and remanded.
Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justices Thomas and Jackson each filed concurring opinions.
Link to Opinion: Here.
Oral Advocates:
- For petitioners: Eric C. Rassbach, Washington, D. C.; and Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
- For respondents: Colin T. Roth, Assistant Attorney General, Madison, Wis.
Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.
Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.
View all episodes
By SCOTUS Oral Arguments
5
33 ratings
Case Info: Catholic Charities Bureau v. WI Labor Review Comm'n | Case No. 24-154 | Date Argued: 3/31/25
Link to Docket: Here.
Background:
Wisconsin exempts from its state unemployment tax system certain religious organizations that are "operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches" and that are also "operated primarily for religious purposes."
Petitioners are Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior and several sub-entities. Although all agree Catholic Charities is controlled by a church-the Diocese of Superior-the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Catholic Charities is not "operated primarily for religious purposes" and thus does not qualify for the tax exemption. Specifically, the court held that Catholic Charities' activities are not "typical" religious activities because Catholic Charities serves and employs non-Catholics, Catholic Charities does not "attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith," and its services to the poor and needy could also be provided by secular organizations.
Questions Presented:
- Does a state violate the First Amendment's Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior?
- In addressing federal constitutional challenges, may state courts require proof of unconstitutionality "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
Holding: The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s application of § 108.02(15)(h)(2) to petitioners violates the First Amendment.
Result: Reversed and remanded.
Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justices Thomas and Jackson each filed concurring opinions.
Link to Opinion: Here.
Oral Advocates:
- For petitioners: Eric C. Rassbach, Washington, D. C.; and Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
- For respondents: Colin T. Roth, Assistant Attorney General, Madison, Wis.
Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.
Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.