Wisconsin Democrats Target Catholic Charities (Again)

In the latest display of glaring anti-Christian bigotry from an elected Democrat politician, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul is continuing his crusade to deny the nonprofit Catholic Charities a valuable tax exemption – even after the Supreme Court handed him a stinging rebuke. Following a unanimous ruling earlier this year, Kaul is now seeking to eliminate the unemployment tax exemption for all religious nonprofits in the state, rather than just letting Catholic Charities have one – setting up yet another potential legal battle.

For eight years, Catholic Charities sought an exemption from paying unemployment taxes into Wisconsin’s system. The reason was fairly simple: the bishops in the state set up their own generous program to care for employees of Catholic schools, parishes, and organizations. State law explicitly allows for unemployment tax exemptions for churches and related religious entities, along with 40 or so other types of employers.

But Democrat state officials regularly denied Catholic Charities the exemption, arguing that the group was not religious enough. Because the group does not explicitly seek to convert people to Catholicism, officials argued, they should not be eligible for the exemption. Catholic Charities also provides services to people of all faiths, not just Catholics.

Of course, most reasonable Americans understand that a religious nonprofit is living out its faith-based values when it feeds the hungry or shelters the homeless. This kind of compassion and kindness is an indirect evangelizing activity. Just because a Christian group does not try explicitly to convert the people it helps does not mean it sheds its religious nature.

After years of legal battles and a loss for Catholic Charities at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the case ended up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. The religious freedom violations were so egregious and obvious that all nine justices signed onto a majority opinion written by liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, admonished Wisconsin for discriminating against Catholic Charities just because they do not try to convert people to Catholicism. “A statute that excludes religious organizations from an accommodation on such grounds facially favors some denominations over others,” she wrote.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas reminded Kaul that it is not for the state to define how a religious organization chooses to act out its beliefs. “The First Amendment guarantees to religious institutions broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves,” Thomas wrote.

Yet Kaul did not seem to get the message. Now back at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, he is arguing that the state should simply eliminate all exemptions for similar nonprofits rather than admit he made a massive legal error and give the tax break to Catholic Charities.

“Discrimination is cured by restoring equal treatment, which can be accomplished here in one of two ways: either by expanding the statutory exemption to groups like Catholic Charities or else by eliminating it altogether,” Kaul argued in mid-October. Kaul chose “eliminating it altogether.”

Kaul’s new argument completely ignores the ruling from the Supreme Court, according to attorneys for Catholic Charities. They argue that the state is now attempting a “bait-and-switch” that “would result in unconstitutional religious targeting.” The change is an obvious attempt to target Catholic Charities, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty wrote in its rebuttal.

“Having violated the Constitution, Wisconsin cannot now act as if its new proposal has nothing to do with that history or that it has not targeted Catholic Charities for exclusion from the very beginning,” the legal group told the state’s highest court.

The move to eliminate the exemption is clearly motivated by anti-Catholic animus, the Becket Fund argued. “Indeed, it is unavoidably clear that there has been one and only one circumstance in which Wisconsin has ever tried to jettison the entire scheme of religious exemptions—when it lost at the United States Supreme Court and was forced to include Catholic Charities,” the group wrote. “This animus is anything but subtle, and it is fatal under the Free Exercise Clause.”

Others have criticized the state’s moves, and some suggested the proposal would lead Wisconsin back in front of the Supreme Court.

Shawn Fleetwood at The Federalist recently called out the hypocrisy of a Democrat ignoring the Supreme Court while the liberal media accuses Trump of undermining democracy and the rule of law. “[W]here is their outrage about Democrat-led Wisconsin’s apparent bid to sidestep [the Court]?” Fleetwood asked.

“Striking the exemption,” as Kaul argued, would be a “perverse outcome,” for the charitable group, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board opined.

As the Becket Fund argued, the Supreme Court required Wisconsin to give an exemption. “That’s a warning to the leftwing Wisconsin jurists not to try their luck with the Justices a second time,” the Editorial Board wrote.

Justices may take up a few cases each year, but are more likely to take up those concerning a violation of their past rulings, a Becket attorney told National Catholic Register. “The chance of getting a hearing at the Supreme Court is low, initially,” Nick Reaves said. “But they’re much more likely to take a case again if the lower court gets it wrong again.”

The Supreme Court has been remarkably clear in the past decade – cities and states cannot discriminate against people on their religious views. The Court has ruled in favor of a Protestant baker who did not want to make cakes for gay weddings, a Catholic agency that did not want to place foster children with same-sex couples, and on behalf of Muslim, Jewish, and Catholic parents who objected to a sexualized school curriculum.

Yet elected Democrats continue to treat the Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause as optional in their ongoing war on religious Americans. While the Supreme Court acts as a bulwark against this type of discrimination, it will ultimately be up to voters to stop it.

Matt Lamb is an associate editor for The College Fix. He previously worked for Students for Life of America, Students for Life Action, and Turning Point USA. He previously interned for Open the Books. His writing has also appeared in the Washington Examiner, The Federalist, LifeSiteNews, Human Life Review, Headline USA, and other outlets. The opinions expressed are his own. Follow him @mattlamb22 on X.