CCB, the social ministry arm of the Diocese of Superior, has provided support services to the poor, elderly, and disabled since 1917. Its mission is to “carry on the redeeming work of our Lord by reflecting gospel values and the moral teaching of the Church.” But because it does not evangelize, limit services to Catholics, or require its employees or clients to be religious, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that it is not “operated primarily for religious purposes” and thus ineligible for a religious exemption from the state’s unemployment insurance program.

The majority of the Supreme Court, including several members of the Democratic-appointed minority, appeared deeply skeptical of that reasoning.

A majority of the court seems inclined to side with Catholic Charities

“It just seems as though Wisconsin says we’re going to set up this system that is operating in a discriminatory fashion,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, questioning why the state would create a legal framework that favors religious groups that proselytize while excluding those that serve everyone.

Justice Elena Kagan was even more pointed, asking the state’s attorney, “Do you think that Wisconsin could pass a statute that says we’ll give a religious tax exemption to religious groups that proselytize but to no others?”

“I don’t understand why it’s not the exact same thing,” Kagan added. The counsel for Wisconsin agreed the state could not pass such a law.

Outside the high court, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty’s vice president and senior counsel Eric Rassbach told the Washington Examiner he thought Kagan’s line of questioning “indicates that they see the inherent contradictions in Wisconsin’s position.”

“So if they say you can’t pass a law doing that, well, essentially, the Wisconsin Supreme Court passed a law saying you get penalized if you don’t proselytize,” Rassbach said. “Put another way, they essentially created this huge incentive to proselytize or serve essentially people from your own faith group … and we think that’s unconstitutional.”

Evangelizing v. Proselytizing

Justice Samuel Alito zeroed in on the state’s narrow view of religious expression, asking CCB’s attorney to clarify Catholic teaching on evangelization. The attorney responded that Catholic doctrine embraces evangelizing — sharing faith through actions — but rejects coercive proselytization that exploits others. “The difference is the sort of almost coercive effect … using it to influence people and kind of take advantage of them, exploit them,” the attorney explained.

At the heart of the dispute is whether the state’s focus on outward religious behavior, such as worship or preaching, can constitutionally be used to deny legal recognition to an organization motivated by deep religious convictions but engaged in outwardly “secular” charitable work.

Under Wisconsin law, organizations “operated primarily for religious purposes” are exempt from contributing to the state’s unemployment insurance fund and may join a church-run alternative. CCB and four of its subentities, including programs that provide job training and daily support services to individuals with developmental disabilities, sought such an exemption in 2016. The Department of Workforce Development rejected the request, and state courts ultimately affirmed the denial.

Wisconsin argues its standard avoids excessive entanglement with religion by drawing the line at explicitly religious activities. However, CCB, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, says that framework is itself entangling — requiring government officials to dissect theological motivations and decide which acts of charity count as religious.

CCB says Wisconsin would have no problem if it dealt directly with the Diocese

CCB argued in its petition that this violates the principle of church autonomy. The nonprofit group says it is being punished for its structure — namely, that it is separately incorporated from the Diocese — and for following Catholic social teaching that calls on believers to serve all people, regardless of faith.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, the Trump administration backed CCB and urged the justices to reverse the Wisconsin ruling. Lawyers for the Justice Department wrote that the state misapplied both federal and constitutional law by focusing on whether CCB’s activities “appear” religious rather than asking whether the organization operates for religious reasons — the standard set forth in the Federal Unemployment Tax Act.

The administration warned that the state’s interpretation could lead to unconstitutional religious discrimination and governmental overreach into internal church matters.

Opposing briefs filed on behalf of Wisconsin defended the ruling, claiming the denial only affects “minor economic incentives” and does not interfere with Catholic Charities’s ability to perform its mission. The state further argued that its approach is neutral and consistent with precedent, applying only to groups whose employment decisions involve overt religious questions — unlike CCB.

CATHOLIC CHARITIES CHALLENGES ‘NON-RELIGIOUS’ LABEL AT SUPREME COURT

The outcome could affect how states and the federal government interpret religious exemptions for faith-based groups. Every jurisdiction in the United States recognizes some version of an exemption for organizations “operated primarily for religious purposes.” A ruling for Catholic Charities could push those standards toward a broader recognition of religious motivation, not just religious messaging.

A decision is expected by late June.