A scheme assembled by officials in the state of Wisconsin to claim Catholic Charities isn’t religious enough to qualify for an exemption from the state’s unemployment tax was shot down, 9-0, by the U.S. Supreme Court.
So state officials doubled down, insisting that they could remove the tax exemption from EVERY religious group in the state. That would eliminate their “discrimination,” they claimed.
But that was a reach too far that even the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which leans far left in most of its rulings, couldn’t swallow.
It blocked the agenda.
Becket, which represented Catholic Charities Bureau in its fight against the Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, confirmed that the state’s highest court denied a request from state officials to destroy the exemption entirely, ordering that Catholic Charities is entitled to the exemption.
It was Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul who originally argued that Catholic Charities’ care for the poor and needy wasn’t religious enough to qualify for the exemption.
When the Supreme Court said it was, Kaul tried an end-run around the ruling.
“In the Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling this past summer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained that Wisconsin had violated federal law by ‘impos[ing] a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines.’ The court further recognized that ‘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,’” Becket reported.
Eric Rassbach, Becket vice president, said, “You’d think Wisconsin would take a 9-0 Supreme Court loss as a hint to stop digging. But apparently Attorney General Kaul and his staff are gluttons for punishment. Thankfully, the Wisconsin Supreme Court put an end to the state’s tomfoolery and confirmed that Catholic Charities is entitled to the exemption it already won.”
Wisconsin officials, faced with a resounding loss at the Supreme Court, tried an end-run by asking the state courts to axe the exemption entirely – meaning that instead of allowing one additional organization to qualify, they wanted to remove the qualifications from every group in the state.
That was in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s intent, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a briefing on the scheme, then halted it.
The state court said Catholic Charities is, in fact, “eligible for the religious purposes exemption.”
“Wisconsin should have taken the L,” explained Rassbach. “Attorney General Kaul never should have doubled down on punishing churches. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s order today protects not just Catholic Charities, but every faith-based organization that relies on this exemption to serve the public. It turns out that penalizing charities is not a winning legal strategy.”
WorldNetDaily had reported Wisconsin officials had claimed they would get rid of any “discrimination” by imposing the same punishment they had created for Catholic Charities on all religious groups in the state.
The Federalist said, “Amid leftists’ ongoing judicial coup against the Trump administration, America’s propaganda media have fomented baseless fears that President Trump is going to ‘defy’ or ‘ignore’ a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court if it rules on a case in a way he doesn’t like. But if these so-called ‘defenders of democracy’ are concerned about government officials ‘ignoring’ court rulings as they claim, where is their outrage about Democrat-led Wisconsin’s apparent bid to sidestep SCOTUS in a prominent religious liberty decision issued earlier this year?”
Actually, the Trump administration has been dedicated to following court rulings, often even while they are being appealed.
Kaul had boasted, during his campaign to punish everyone, that the Supreme Court didn’t order him to give Catholic Charities the exemption, just that the “discrimination” must be eliminated.
Discrimination: Leftist state’s scheme amounts to refusal to follow Supreme Court’s ruling
