The court is undertaking a case in which a potential religious charter school and Wisconsin deny unemployment tax exemption for Catholic charities.
The Supreme Court has heard two cases in the coming months questioning whether the government can reject religious groups’ support or whether it can reject exemptions under the First Amendment.
In one case, the statewide charter school board v. Drummond, court in Oklahoma, is considering whether the state accidentally denied enrollment of Catholic schools into the charter school program. Another Catholic Charity Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Board will involve the charitable challenge to the state’s decision not to be exempt from the Unemployment Benefits Act.
In both cases, it touches on the establishment of the First Amendment and the free movement clause. It read: “The Congress will not create laws that respect the establishment of religion or ban free exercises.”
The Catholic Charity case, set for oral debate on March 31, questions whether Wisconsin violated the First Amendment by refusing to grant organizations tax exemptions from unemployment benefits.
Disputes are not only concentrated in the constitution but also in the federal unemployment tax laws, which exempt organizations from paying unemployment taxes when operating primarily for religious purposes. At the state level, Wisconsin has enacted similar laws that were exempt from similar words.
“Entanglement”
Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court opposed Catholic charities, saying it was not operated primarily for religious purposes and therefore was not eligible for ordinary religious exemptions under state law. It added that the state’s refusal to denial of tax exemption did not violate the First Amendment.
Related Stories
The state amendments do not prohibit all entanglements between the church and the state, and say that through ongoing surveillance of religious groups, these entanglements should not be “excessive.”
Religious Charter School
Another case is the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Boardv. Drummond has been set for oral discussion on April 30th, which will help set up future courses for charter schools across the country.
In its June 2024 decision, the state Supreme Court held that the agreement violated a part of the state constitution that stated that the agreement “public money or property will not directly or indirectly use public money or property for use such as a religion, church, sect, or use of religion, or use of religion, church, sect, or use of religion, or use of religion, or any other form of public money or property directly or indirectly.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentnaldramond during an interview in Oklahoma City on February 1, 2023. Sue Ogrocki/AP Photo
Describing St. Isidor as “the instrument of the Catholic Church,” the court stated that “expenditures of state funds for St. Isidor’s operations constitute the use of state funds for the benefit and support of the Catholic Church.”
St. Isidor and the Charter School Board are calling for the US Supreme Court to intervene. Meanwhile, Drummond told the Supreme Court that the lower court’s ruling correctly determined that charter schools must be public schools and provide strictly secular education.
“Religious groups want to say that religious groups are not treated worse than religious groups,” Jim Campbell, the Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer who represents the organization, told the Epoch Times.
Potential Supreme Court Judgment
In both cases, the Supreme Court considers how religious organizations’ activities affect their relationship with the state. The final decision came amid other religious incidents where both Campbell, which represents Catholic charities, and Colten Stanberry of Becket Fund, represent Catholic charities.
Stanberry said the recent decision “has become a kind of repetition… When the government provides generally available benefits, you cannot discriminate against religious figures seeking that benefit based on their religious status.” He added that the courts appear to think “religion doesn’t have to be in the background,” and that it lies in a pluralistic society, and that religious people should be entitled to the same benefits as others.
Wisconsin also told the Supreme Court that its unemployment program does not support secular groups like the Maine program did in Carson v. Makin.
“It presents the opposite scenario from the treatment of Carson’s secular preferences,” the state argued.
“Wisconsin offers exemptions that organizations run for religious purposes that cannot be obtained by comparable secular organizations.”
