In a 9-0 ruling issued on June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Catholic Charities Bureau of Superior, Wisconsin, declaring that the state had violated the First Amendment by denying the organization a tax exemption offered to other religious institutions.
As reported by SCOTUS Blog’s Amy Howe, the Court found that Wisconsin’s decision was not neutral toward religion but instead amounted to “denominational discrimination.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the majority opinion, emphasizing that such a decision “explicitly differentiates between religions based on theological practices,” which the Constitution forbids.
Charity Work Motivated by Faith Still Counts as Religious
The case centered around whether Catholic Charities,a nonprofit affiliated with the Diocese of Superior, qualified as a religious organization for the purpose of unemployment tax exemptions. According to Roman Balmakov of Facts Matter, Catholic Charities offers services such as food aid, job training, and care for the elderly and disabled. These services are open to all, regardless of religion, and do not include overt proselytizing or worship. This secular approach led Wisconsin officials to deny them the exemption, arguing the group wasn’t “religious enough.” But the Supreme Court disagreed.
Justice Sotomayor Says Faith Isn’t Measured by Proselytizing
Justice Sotomayor wrote that the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s logic implied that only organizations that preach or restrict services to fellow believers could qualify for a religious exemption. “The organization’s Catholic faith prevents it from using charity to proselytize,” Sotomayor noted, turning the state’s logic on its head. In her view, forcing groups to evangelize in order to be considered religiously motivated was itself a form of theological favoritism – a direct violation of religious neutrality.
Strict Scrutiny Applies When Government Picks Religious Winners
Because Wisconsin’s system granted tax exemptions to some religious entities but denied them to others based on theological distinctions, it triggered the constitutional standard known as “strict scrutiny.” As Amy Howe reported, under this standard, the government must prove the law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. The Court ruled that Wisconsin failed both tests. Its system was underinclusive by exempting dozens of other similar organizations and overinclusive by exempting even secular workers at churches.
Justice Clarence Thomas Defends Church Autonomy
Justice Clarence Thomas added a concurring opinion, arguing the Wisconsin courts erred by treating Catholic Charities as if it were a separate entity from the Diocese of Superior. Thomas pointed to Catholic Church canon law, which treats charitable arms like Catholic Charities as part of the diocesan structure. Denying this connection, Thomas said, violated the church autonomy doctrine – a legal principle protecting religious groups from state interference in internal governance.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Highlights Federal Context
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also weighed in with her own concurrence. She emphasized that under the federal unemployment tax system, religious exemptions apply based on the organization’s function, not its intentions. While she didn’t object to the ruling, she clarified that religious work must still align with the intended scope of the law. Her view adds another layer of caution in interpreting what counts as “religious function,” even if it doesn’t depend on overt doctrine.
Balmakov Says Ruling Impacts Over 40 States
Roman Balmakov highlighted the wider implications of this case in his Facts Matter video. He noted that more than 40 states have laws similar to Wisconsin’s, making this ruling nationally significant. “This case has the potential to affect a lot of organizations across the whole country,” he said, listing religiously rooted but broadly serving institutions like Catholic hospitals, the Salvation Army, and even the YMCA. States now have “less power to determine whether an organization qualifies as being sufficiently religious.”
Why This Case Is Fascinating Beyond the Law
Here’s where things get interesting on a deeper level. This ruling challenges the narrow way people think about religion. Too often, we imagine it only in terms of worship services or prayers. But the Court here said: no, religion can also be about feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and doing good in the world – quietly and universally. That’s a powerful message in a time when government sometimes tries to fit faith into neat little boxes.
Government Cannot Be a Theological Referee
One of the most important takeaways, as Amy Howe reported, is that the government doesn’t get to decide how religious an organization must be to deserve equal treatment. Religious freedom, the Court reiterated, means respecting different approaches to faith, including those that don’t wear it on their sleeves. This ruling doesn’t just protect Catholic Charities – it protects diversity within religious expression itself.
A Win for Both Faith and Fairness
What stands out most about this case is that it wasn’t a culture war brawl – it was a quiet but firm defense of fairness. Even progressives on the Court like Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson agreed with conservatives like Justice Thomas. That tells you this wasn’t about ideology. It was about the Constitution doing what it’s supposed to do: keeping government neutral and treating people equally. In a time when the country feels increasingly divided, it’s refreshing to see all nine justices agree on something so foundational.
Catholic Charities’ Lawyer Calls Decision “A Fundamental Truth”
Speaking to The Epoch Times, Eric Rassbach, the lawyer for Catholic Charities, called the ruling “a win for religious freedom,” adding, “It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn’t religious because it helps everyone.” That quote captures the heart of the matter. Doing good for all people because of one’s faith shouldn’t disqualify a group from religious protections – it should affirm it.
Looking Ahead: A Legal Shift with Major Implications
The case, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, now heads back to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. But its broader effect is already rippling outward. As Balmakov pointed out, this decision may give legal ammunition to countless faith-based nonprofits that serve broadly without preaching. And as Amy Howe noted, the ruling reinforces the idea that when the state discriminates between religious approaches, it oversteps. The wall between church and state doesn’t mean the state gets to peek inside and judge what kind of religion is real.
Faith in Action Now Has Stronger Protection
At the end of the day, the Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision reminds us that faith isn’t just expressed in pews or prayers. Sometimes it looks like a hot meal or a place to sleep. And when a state tries to punish that kind of faith because it doesn’t look “religious enough,” the Constitution is there to say no. Thanks to reporters like Amy Howe and commentators like Roman Balmakov, the public now has a clear view of what this case means – and why it matters for religious liberty in modern America.
Raised in a small Arizona town, Kevin grew up surrounded by rugged desert landscapes and a family of hunters. His background in competitive shooting and firearms training has made him an authority on self-defense and gun safety. A certified firearms instructor, Kevin teaches others how to properly handle and maintain their weapons, whether for hunting, home defense, or survival situations. His writing focuses on responsible gun ownership, marksmanship, and the role of firearms in personal preparedness.