One of the Supreme Court’s first steps after Republicans gained a 6-3 supermajority on its bench was a revolutionary decision that expanded the right of religious institutions to seek exemptions from state law. Since then, the Court has fairly consistently sided with Christian litigants who seek such exemptions, or who raise other religious liberty-related claims (although it Not always shown D Same sympathy for Muslims with similar claims).
That history means it’s hard to think of a litigant more likely to have the sympathy of most judges than Catholic Charities. Bureau of Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industrial Review Commission. Catholic Charities seeks an exemption from Wisconsin law requiring employers to pay taxes that fund unemployment benefits. the court The hearing was announced on Friday Catholic Charities.
It is likely that the courts will side with Catholic Charities. The more important question is how Courts could write judgments in favor of Catholic Charities, as too broad a view could have potentially dire consequences – at least giving some companies a legal basis to mistreat workers and choose which laws apply to them and which ones. t.
What are the legal issues? Catholic Charities?
like Every other stateWisconsin taxes employers for unemployment benefits for workers who lose their jobs. Wisconsin, however, exempts employers controlled by churches and that are “Mainly run for religious purposes,” from this tax.
The Wisconsin state Supreme Court recently ruled that this “religious purpose” exemption applies only to employers who are primarily engaged in religious activities, such as holding worship services or providing religious education. The court found that Not applicable for institutionsAs do Catholic charities, which provide secular services such as job training or feeding the poor — even if the organization is motivated by religion to provide these secular services.
Notably, there is Catholic Charities This unemployment tax has been paid since 1972.
Catholic charity advocates claim that this violates the distinction between religious and secular services First Amendment Protecting religious freedom in different ways. Among other things, they claim that Wisconsin Discrimination against religionLike the Catholic Church, which believes in an “obligation to serve[e] those in need without conversion,” and Wisconsin’s law interfered with the church’s right to manage its own affairs.
Is this a good argument? not really Wisconsin does not discriminate against the Catholic Church. Wisconsin will allow any religious institution, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Satanic, to be exempt from unemployment taxes if it holds worship services or if it teaches lessons about a sacred text. It would likewise not grant this exemption to one, regardless of his faith, that works for secular charity.
Nor is Wisconsin interfering with the religious freedom of the church. The state is not trying to influence the internal affairs of the Church in any significant way. The Supreme Court said the government “must stay out of it”.Strictly religious” issues, such as a fight between two religious leaders over who was properly appointed as archbishop. but Catholic Charities Not only does such a matter involve internal church governance, it also involves the state’s decision to tax both secular and many religious employers to provide unemployment benefits.
And, again, it’s worth noting that Catholic Charities has been in compliance with Wisconsin’s tax laws since 1972. The fact that it’s now seeking an exemption after decades of compliance suggests that preexisting law doesn’t support the church’s position — and church lawyers now think they can. Win lost cases before less sympathetic panels of judges.
Two ways that the Supreme Court could rule in favor of Catholic Charities
In the unlikely event that the Supreme Court rules in favor of Catholic Charities, there are two options. One is a narrow decision that applies to a small subset of employers. Another could potentially overturn decades-old precedent and risk seriously upsetting the balance of power between workers and employers.
If the court wishes to issue a narrower opinion Catholic CharitiesIt may rule that its decision applies only to organizations engaged in charitable work, and make it clear that the ruling does not apply to any group engaged in commercial activity. Failure to do so may create a situation which the Court sought to avoid Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor (1985).
In that case, a religious foundation operates a long list of commercial businesses, including “service stations, retail clothing and grocery stores, hog farms, roofing and electrical construction companies, a recordkeeping company, a motel, and a company engaged in the production and distribution of sweets.” These businesses were staffed with “associates” who were not paid cash wages or salaries, but instead provided only benefits such as food, clothing, and shelter. The federal government sued the foundation, alleging that it violated federal minimum wage, overtime and workplace recordkeeping laws.
A unanimous Supreme Court rejected the foundation’s claim that it was exempt from these laws because it objected to them on religious grounds. Among other things, the court warned that the foundation’s business competes with other secular businesses in the market and allowed the foundation to pay “undoubtedly inferior wages.” [the foundation] and similar firms have an advantage over their competitors.”
in United States v. Lee (1982), the Supreme Court expressed similar concerns about a religious employer seeking an exemption from paying Social Security taxes. indeed, Lee A blanket rule declares that “when adherents of a particular community enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the restrictions which they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and belief shall not be imposed by statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.” .”
D Catholic Charities The case is distinguished from both The Alamo Foundation And Lee Because it does not involve any religious organization engaged in commercial activities. Catholic Charities is a legitimate charity that does a lot of good work for the needy. This is not a business that operates a hog farm or sells candy.
So a win for Catholic Charities may just be a win for religious organizations without commercial interests who want to avoid unemployment taxes. To reach that result, the Court would simply have to follow the line of these old cases between institutions engaged in “commercial activity,” which cannot claim a religious exemption from laws governing that activity, and institutions engaged in more traditional charitable work.
However, there is a chance that the court will ignore this line in favor of a legal argument that a recent decision made: In 2014, the Supreme Court held that private, for-profit businesses, in some cases, Seek religious exemptions from federal business regulations.
That was the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), where the court decided that private businesses, whose owners object to some forms of birth control on religious grounds, are exempt from federal rules requiring employers to cover contraception in their employees’ health plans. Courts have become more conservative and friendlier to Christian litigants seeking only religious exemptions. hobby lobby. It is therefore not clear that this Court would want to waive the rule against permitting trade which may distort the market which was declared. Lee.
It is possible to differentiate hobby lobby from Catholic Charitiesbecause hobby lobby originated under a federal law that gives particularly strong religious freedom protections to those affected by federal law. Catholic CharitiesIn contrast, the Constitution asks whether a religious employer is permitted to seek an exemption from state law.
In any case, if the court makes a narrow decision that legitimate charities like Catholic Charities, which are directly affiliated with a church, are entitled to certain religious exemptions, it’s hardly the end of the world. Such a decision would likely affect only a relatively small number of employees, and it would only affect those employees who have voluntarily chosen to do charity work.
Still its shadow hobby lobby Large looms in this case. And this Supreme Court often issues haphazardly reasoned opinions that unnecessarily disturb the settlement of the law. So there is at least some risk that the Court will hand down a decision that essentially undermines much of American labor and employment law by allowing commercial businesses to exempt themselves from broad laws intended to protect their workers.
