This term, the Supreme Court has seen both unity and significant division regarding religious rights, with a notable decision still pending.
On Thursday, all nine justices sided with the Catholic Charities in a conflict over unemployment taxes in Wisconsin. However, just a few weeks prior, the court’s 4-4 deadlock meant that a proposed religious charter school faced defeat.
Supporters are now looking toward other major religious cases as the term continues.
“In recent years, the courts have been using religious clause cases to convey that things don’t have to be so contentious,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket, a religious law organization representing both parents and Catholic charities.
The growing number of cases surrounding the Supreme Court’s religious docket is seen as a hallmark of Chief Justice John Roberts’ tenure.
Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, indicates the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious groups 83% of the time, marking a significant shift from prior years.
Many of these rulings have favored Christian traditions, which critics argue signals a shift away from protecting non-mainstream religions.
Nevertheless, on Thursday, the court reached a unanimous ruling.
The nine justices decided that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment by denying Catholic charities exemptions from state unemployment taxes.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court had previously ruled that these charities were primarily not religious and could only qualify for exemptions if they aimed to convert individuals. Catholic charities contended that their faith prohibits using charity work as a means for conversion.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the majority opinion, asserting that Wisconsin’s preference for certain religious groups is unconstitutional.
“While there may be many challenges in enforcing these rules, this isn’t one of them,” Sotomayor noted.
The fact that Sotomayor, one of the three justices appointed by Democrats, wrote this opinion contributed to a sense of consensus.
“Her vote along with ours in several other cases illustrates that this isn’t merely a partisan issue,” Rienzi remarked.
However, Sotomayor’s opinion didn’t tackle all debates, particularly those regarding church autonomy, which Justice Clarence Thomas commented on in a separate statement.
Ryan Gardner, a senior advisor at the Liberty Institute, recognized the opinion as supportive of Catholic charities.
“They certainly want to find ways to navigate these challenges, which explains the nature of the opinion,” he said.
Both supporters and critics of the court’s ruling acknowledge its implications extend beyond tax matters to larger cultural issues.
The shift in focus at the Supreme Court is now moving from unemployment taxes to abortion.
Currently, petitions from religious organizations, represented by Becket, are pending involving New York’s requirement for employer health plans to cover abortion, with exemptions only for those organizations that embed religious values into their functions.
Many faith-based charities still face responsibilities despite these nuances.
Some believe Thursday’s ruling could bolster legal disputes in lower courts involving churches that assist the homeless or provide food distributions.
This isn’t the first time the court has unanimously backed religious rights advocates. Last year, the Fast Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian postal worker requesting to avoid Sunday shifts due to religious beliefs. And in 2021, the court unanimously ruled that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to work with a Catholic adoption agency that didn’t approve same-sex couples as foster parents.
“At the time, people thought it was a narrow decision, but it has since transformed how we view free movement cases,” Gardner explained.
Still, harmony isn’t guaranteed. Just last month, the court split evenly on a high-profile case about whether Oklahoma could create the first publicly funded religious charter school, causing that effort to stall with a brief ruling that said, “The judgment has been confirmed by similarly divided courts.”
Supporters of St. Isidor of Sebille Catholic virtual schools are left waiting, even as they remain hopeful for future victories.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of Trump’s appointees, recused herself from the St. Isidor case but might have a chance to cast an important fifth vote in an upcoming case that could significantly impact public education.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has another major religious case pending this term.
The court in Montgomery County, Maryland, is deliberating whether parents should be allowed to opt their primary school children out of classes that include LGBTQ themes. A group of Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents argues that this would infringe upon their First Amendment rights.
During oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic to the parents’ concerns, while the three liberal justices’ positions remained less clear.
“It might just end up being a split decision,” Gardner suggested. A similar lawsuit has also been filed on behalf of California parents.
Yet he cautioned, “You never really know where individual justices will land.”
