Wisconsin Democrat Attorney General Josh Kaul has suffered yet another humiliating setback in his persecution of Catholic Charities. In a stinging rebuke, the Badger State’s supreme court – which has a 4-3 liberal majority – ruled that the state cannot deny Catholic Charities a religious tax exemption. The decision ends a nearly decade-long crusade against the religious nonprofit.
For eight years, Catholic Charities has sought an exemption from paying into Wisconsin’s unemployment system. This exemption is available to religious organizations, and Catholic Charities sought the reprieve because Catholic groups in the state have a more generous option set up by the bishops, as previously reported by AMAC Newsline.
State Democrat officials denied the exemption because they said Catholic Charities did not do enough to promote Catholicism to qualify as a religious entity. Because Catholic Charities serves needy individuals of all backgrounds and doesn’t explicitly try to convert the people it helps, Kaul and his allies argued, they shouldn’t get the tax exemption.
If that sounds like an absurdly thin argument to disguise blatant anti-Christian animus on the part of Wisconsin Democrats, you’re not alone. Following years of legal battles and an initial loss at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Catholic Charities secured a victory this summer at the U.S. Supreme Court. All nine justices signed onto a majority opinion written by liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, blasting Kaul for weaponizing the law against Catholic Charities.
“A statute that excludes religious organizations from an accommodation on such grounds facially favors some denominations over others,” the Obama appointee wrote.
That should have been the end of it.
But unwilling to humble himself and admit he erred, Kaul instead dug in deeper. Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he could not discriminate against Catholic Charities, Kaul attempted to strip all religious organizations of their unemployment tax exemption. In October, he asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to support this latest scheme.
“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. He chose “eliminating it altogether.”
But as predicted by political and legal observers, the Wisconsin Supreme Court smacked down Kaul’s obviously underhanded ploy and ordered state officials to grant Catholic Charities the exemption. Just before Christmas, the court released a brief order affirming “that Catholic Charities et al. is eligible for the religious purposes exemption to unemployment taxation.” The unsigned opinion ordered state officials to grant the exemption to the nonprofit.
Commentators pointed out that Kaul should have seen the writing on the wall and stopped his egregious and unlawful attacks on Catholic Charities for simply wanting the same tax exemption granted to other groups. “You’d think Wisconsin would take a 9-0 Supreme Court loss as a hint to stop digging,” Eric Rassbach, senior counsel for the Becket Fund, stated. The religious liberty nonprofit represented Catholic Charities in its legal battles.
“Kaul and his staff are gluttons for punishment,” Rassbach continued, but “thankfully, the Wisconsin Supreme Court put an end to the state’s tomfoolery and confirmed that Catholic Charities is entitled to the exemption it already won… It turns out that penalizing charities is not a winning legal strategy.”
He further recommended that Kaul should have acknowledged his error after the Supreme Court loss and “taken the L.”
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board said Kaul’s proposal to strip other groups of their tax exemption, if accepted by state justices, would have “earned another First Amendment smackdown by the Supreme Court.”
“It’s nice to see the state’s liberal jurists showing more sense than Mr. Kaul,” the board opined. “Yes, that’s a bragging right akin to the tallest building in Sheboygan, but we’re trying to be more charitable than Mr. Kaul in the holiday season.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that cities and states cannot discriminate against people on the basis of their religious views. Whether it is a Protestant baker who does not want to make cakes for gay weddings, a Catholic agency that does not want to place foster children with same-sex couples, or Muslim, Jewish, and Christian parents who want to opt-out of school curriculum that violates their beliefs, the U.S. Supreme Court has generally looked with suspicion on state officials who claim they have a legitimate interest in trampling someone’s religious liberty.
Josh Kaul’s string of embarrassing defeats should be a warning to other state officials who seek to impede the Constitution’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion. While they may secure temporary victories before partisan lower-court judges, the U.S. Supreme Court – at least in its current makeup – will not look kindly on attacks on the First Amendment.
Matt Lamb is a contributor for AMAC Newsline and 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.
