The question
Whether Wisconsin's denial of an unemployment tax exemption to a Catholic charitable organization, on the ground that it did not proselytize or limit its services to Catholics, violates the First Amendment.
Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Comm’n.
What the Court decided
Reversed. The Court held that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's application of the state unemployment tax exemption to Catholic Charities Bureau and its subentities violated the First Amendment. The exemption's eligibility turned on whether an organization proselytizes or serves only co-religionists, which are inherently theological choices rather than neutral secular criteria, so the state's interpretation drew a denominational preference subject to strict scrutiny. The State did not meet its burden under strict scrutiny.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
Delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religions and subjects any state-sponsored denominational preference to strict scrutiny. The Wisconsin Supreme Court's reading of the exemption differentiated among religions along theological lines because eligibility turned on whether petitioners proselytize or serve only co-religionists, not on secular criteria. The State's reliance on Gillette v. United States was misplaced because the conscientious objector status there was equally available to all religions, unlike this statute as interpreted. Recasting the ruling as turning on the absence of distinctively religious activity did not save the statute, because decisions to express and inculcate religious doctrine while performing charitable work are themselves theological choices. The statute as applied could not survive strict scrutiny because the State did not meet its burden.
Concurring
Thomas, writing alone
Filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus notes the filing but does not state its reasoning.
Concurring
Jackson, writing alone
Filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus notes the filing but does not state its reasoning.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's application of the unemployment tax exemption statute to petitioners violated the First Amendment.
Source: syllabus, Held
The exemption's eligibility turned on inherently religious choices, namely whether to proselytize or serve only co-religionists, rather than secular criteria.
Source: syllabus, Held
Because the statute as interpreted differentiated among religions based on theological practices, strict scrutiny applied.
Source: syllabus, Held
The statute as applied could not survive strict scrutiny because the State did not meet its burden.
Source: syllabus, Held
Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, with concurring opinions filed by Justice Thomas and Justice Jackson.
Source: syllabus, lineup