Context:

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a Catholic charity in Wisconsin, granting it a tax exemption that had previously been denied by a state court, which had judged the charity's activities as primarily secular rather than religious. Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that the state court's decision constituted unconstitutional denominational discrimination by imposing a preference between religions based on their theological practices. The charity, Catholic Charities Bureau, argued that its mission is rooted in Gospel values and Catholic social teachings, and that its charitable work is not used for proselytizing but is intended to serve all individuals regardless of their religious background. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred, emphasizing the importance of church autonomy and the constitutional right of religious institutions to organize themselves without state interference. The case highlighted the Supreme Court's continuing trend in favor of religious liberties, as it was one of three religion-related cases heard during the term, with another case pending decision and a third resulting in a deadlock vote without setting a national precedent.

Dive Deeper:

• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Catholic charity in Wisconsin is eligible for a tax exemption, overturning the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision which had classified the charity's activities as primarily secular and not religious enough for the exemption.

• Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the Wisconsin court's decision as denominational discrimination, arguing that the court improperly differentiated between religions based on theological choices, violating constitutional principles.

• Catholic Charities Bureau, representing the social ministry of the Catholic Diocese in Superior, Wisconsin, contends its services are based on Gospel values and Catholic social teachings, emphasizing that its charitable work is open to all without proselytizing.

• Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, highlighted the importance of church autonomy, asserting that religious institutions have the constitutional right to define their own governance structures free from state interference.

• The case is part of a broader trend observed in the Supreme Court, which has been ruling favorably towards religious groups, with two other religion-related cases being considered during the term, one of which remains undecided and another resulting in a deadlock.

• A lawyer for the state had admitted during the case arguments that the charity would qualify for the tax exemption if it were considered part of the church rather than a separate corporate entity, but insisted on principles distinguishing religious institutions.

• Eric Rassbach, representing the charity, welcomed the ruling, criticizing the state's initial stance as absurd for denying the charity's religious nature simply because it serves all people regardless of their religion.