chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.
March 26, 2025

Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission

FIRST AMENDMENT

Do the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses Prohibit a State from Denying an Exemption from the State’s Unemployment Compensation Program to a Religious Organization When That Organization Provides Secular Services?

Case at a Glance

Catholic Charities and four subentities that provide community services applied for an exemption from Wisconsin’s unemployment compensation program. The Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission determined that they were not “operated primarily for religious purposes” under Wisconsin law and therefore denied them an exemption. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed.


Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission
Docket No. 23-1039

Argument Date: March 31, 2025
From: The Supreme Court of Wisconsin

by Steven D. Schwinn, University of Illinois Chicago School of Law, Chicago, IL

Issues

Did Wisconsin violate the Religion Clauses when it denied an exemption from the state’s unemployment compensation program to Catholic Charities and four subentities because they were not “operated primarily for religious purposes” under Wisconsin law?

Facts

Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB) is a nonprofit corporation in Wisconsin that operates as the social ministry arm of the Diocese of the Superior, a diocese of the Roman Catholic Church. CCB’s mission is “[t]o carry on the redeeming work of our Lord by reflecting gospel values and the moral teaching of the church.” Since 1917, CCB has fulfilled its mission by “providing services to the poor and disadvantaged as an expression of the social ministry of the Catholic Church.” CCB’s “purpose” “is to be an effective sign of the charity of Christ” by providing services without discriminating by “race, sex, or religion.” CCB pledges that it “will in its activities and actions reflect gospel values and will be consistent with its mission and the mission of the Diocese of Superior.”

CCB oversees several separately incorporated subentities that provide direct services to the community. CCB provides management services for its subentities; it establishes and coordinates their missions; and it approves all capital expenditures and investments of the subentities. CCB’s executive director supervises the subentities’ operations.

At the same time, however, CCB does not require its employees or employees of its subentities to be of any particular religious faith. CCB similarly does not require those who receive services from subentities to be of any particular religious faith. Program participants do not receive any religious instruction, and CCB and its subentities do not attempt to “inculcate the Catholic faith with program participants.”

Four of CCB’s subentities are involved in this case:

  1. Barron County Developmental Services: Contracts with the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation to provide job-related services for individuals with disabilities.
  2. Black River Industries, Inc.: Provides services to individuals with developmental or mental health disabilities and individuals with limited incomes.
  3. Diversified Services, Inc.: Provides work opportunities for individuals with developmental disabilities.
  4. Headwaters, Inc.: Provides support and training services related to daily living for individuals with disabilities.

In 1972, the Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations determined that CCB was subject to the state’s unemployment compensation program and therefore required to make contributions to the program. The department made this determination after CCB self-reported that its operations were “charitable,” “educational,” and “rehabilitative,” and not “religious.” CCB has made unemployment contributions ever since.

In 2015, the Douglas County Circuit Court determined that a subentity of CCB was exempt from the unemployment compensation program on the ground that it was “operated primarily for religious purposes.”

The next year, CCB and the subentities in this case asked the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) for a similar determination. In support of their request, they cited the state unemployment-compensation law, which exempts those “[i]n the employ of an organization operated primarily for religious purposes….” Wis. Stat. § 108.02(15)(h)(2). DWD denied the request, stating that “these organizations are supervised and controlled by the Roman Catholic Church, but it has not been established that they are operated primarily for religious purposes.” After some back-and-forth rulings at the administrative level, the state Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) concluded that CCB and the four subentities were not “operated primarily for religious purposes” under Wisconsin law and therefore not exempt from making payments to the state unemployment insurance program.

The circuit court reversed, and the appellate court reversed again (restoring LIRC’s conclusion). The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, and CCB and its subentities brought this appeal.

Case Analysis

The First Amendment contains two religion clauses:

· Establishment Clause: Prohibits the government from “establishing” religion.

· Free Exercise Clause: Prohibits the government from restricting or interfering with the free exercise of religion.

Rather than focusing on the clauses individually, the parties frame their arguments around principles that emerge from the Religion Clauses as read together.

CCB’s Arguments:

  1. Church Autonomy: The denial “violates the principle of church autonomy by penalizing Catholic Charities because of its structure, including the fact that it is separately incorporated from the Diocese of Superior.” CCB argues that forcing it to merge with the Diocese would violate Catholic social teaching.
  2. Entanglement: Wisconsin’s denial “impermissibly entangles the state in religion” by second-guessing CCB’s religious commands (e.g., whether helping those with disabilities is a religious act).
  3. Discrimination: The state’s test favors religious groups that proselytize or serve only their own faith, while discriminating against CCB for its “particular Catholic polity.”

U.S. Government’s Amicus Brief:

· Supports CCB, arguing the Wisconsin Supreme Court misread the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). The statute asks whether an organization operates primarily for religious reasons, not whether its activities could be secular.

Wisconsin’s Counterarguments:

  1. No Entanglement: The exemption avoids entanglement by focusing on “distinctively religious activities” (e.g., worship, teaching faith).
  2. No Discrimination: The exemption accommodates only groups whose employment decisions pose religious questions (unlike CCB).
  3. No Autonomy Violation: Denying the exemption affects only “minor economic incentives,” not core “matters of faith.”

Statutory Interpretation: The state supreme court’s reading was consistent with the law’s text, purpose, and precedent.

Significance

  1. Broad Impact: Every state and the federal government exempt religious organizations that “operate primarily for religious purposes.” A ruling could redefine these exemptions nationwide.
  2. Trend in Favor of Religious Liberty: Recent cases (Kennedy v. BremertonCarson v. MakinTrinity Lutheran) suggest the Court may side with CCB.
  3. Other Pending Cases: Two April cases (Mahmoud v. Taylor and Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond) will further test the Religion Clauses.

Steven D. Schwinn

Professor of law at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law

Linda S. Mullenix holds the Morris & Rita Atlas Chair in Advocacy at the University of Texas School of Law. She is the author of Public Nuisance: The New Mass Tort Frontier (Cambridge University Press 2024). She may be reached at [email protected]

 

PREVIEW of United States Supreme Court Cases 52, no. 5 (February 24, 2025): 27–35. © 2025 American Bar Association

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PARTIES

In Support of Petitioners:

· American Center for Law & Justice (Jay Alan Sekulow, 202.546.8890)

· Catholic Charities USA (Keith R. Styles, 703.549.1390)

· Eleven Major Religious Denominations (Gene Clayton Schaerr, 202.787.1060)

· United States (Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, 202.514.2218)

In Support of Respondents:

· Americans United for Separation of Church and State (Alexander J. Luchenitser, 202.466.7306)

· Freedom From Religion Foundation (Samuel Troxell Grover, 608.256.8900)