Quick Hit:

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a Catholic charity in Wisconsin, finding the state violated the First Amendment by denying tax exemptions based on religious criteria. Justices said the state’s attempt to define religious purpose overstepped constitutional bounds.

Key Details:

• The Court ruled 9-0 that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment by denying tax credits to a Catholic charity.
• Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion, condemning the state's “denominational preference.”
• The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s earlier ruling claimed the charity wasn’t “primarily religious” due to its broad service base.

Diving Deeper:

In a unanimous decision Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory to a Wisconsin-based Catholic charity, rejecting the state’s attempt to deny it tax exemptions on religious grounds. The case centered on whether the charity, which provides social services to both Catholics and non-Catholics, qualifies for a religious tax credit under state law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing the opinion for the Court, made clear that the state overstepped its constitutional limits by evaluating the charity’s religious identity based on theological judgments. “When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny,” Sotomayor wrote.

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court had ruled against the charity, arguing that it wasn’t “operated primarily for religious purposes” since it employed non-Catholics and didn’t actively seek to convert or evangelize those it helped. But the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that interpretation, saying the state’s approach created “unnecessary entanglement” with religion—an explicit violation of the First Amendment.

“Because Wisconsin has transgressed that principle without the tailoring necessary to survive such scrutiny,” Sotomayor continued, “the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

This decision is a major affirmation of religious liberty and a clear warning to states attempting to regulate or define faith-based institutions through a secular lens. While the ruling was narrow in its legal scope, it sends a broader message: religious organizations cannot be penalized for opening their doors to all people.