Supreme Court could preserve, or restrict, religious freedom in upcoming term

NEW YORK – When the Supreme Court reconvenes in less than a month there are two cases the justices could rule on that directly involve Catholic entities and could go a long way in either preserving or restricting religious freedom in the United States.

In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, a Wisconsin Catholic Charities branch, is asking the court to confirm its status as a religious organization so that it can receive a tax exemption. And in Diocese of Albany v. Harris, a group of religious ministries including Anglican and Catholic nuns are looking for the nation’s high court to overturn a state mandate that they must cover abortion procedures in their health insurance plans.

The Supreme Court will convene for the 2024-25 term in October. Neither of the aforementioned cases are on the court’s argument calendar for either October or November. The argument calendars for December and beyond have not yet been released.

Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission

In a case that could have broad national implications, Catholic Charities in the Diocese of Superior petitioned the Supreme Court last month to overturn a state court decision that its activities aren’t primarily religious, which denied the organization a religious exemption from paying into the state’s unemployment compensation program.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the case, it will have a significant impact on what activities qualify an organization for a religious exemption.

The work of Catholic Charities in the Diocese of Superior mirrors that of other Catholic Charities branches nationwide. The organization, according to its website, helps people in the area with education in life skills, vocations and employment, housing, infant development, in-home nursing services, and independent living assistance.

Under Wisconsin law, nonprofits that are operated for a religious purpose are generally exempt from paying into the state’s unemployment compensation program. In the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling in the case back in 2023, the majority ruled that the organization’s work to help those in need may stem from Catholic teaching, but in fact it is secular work.

“In other words, they offer services that would be the same regardless of the motivation of the provider, a strong indication that the sub-entities do not ‘operate primarily for religious purposes,’” Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote for the majority.

Bishop James Powers of Superior argues the organization carries out the diocese’s essential ministry.

“Catholic Charities Bureau carries out our Diocese’s essential ministry of caring for the most vulnerable members of our society,” Powers said in an August statement. “We pray the Court will recognize that this work of improving the human condition is rooted in Christ’s call to care for those in need.”

Diocese of Albany v. Harris

The latest ruling in Diocese of Albany v. Harris came back in May, when New York State Court of Appeals Judge Rowan Wilson ruled that both a state mandate that requires employers to cover abortion in their employee health insurance plans, and the criteria to qualify for a religious exemption “are generally applicable and do not violate the Free Exercise Clause” of the First Amendment.

The case dates back to 2017, when the New York State Department of Financial Services implemented the mandate that employers must cover abortions in their employee health insurance plans. The mandate, as originally written, includes only a narrow exemption covering religious groups that both primarily teach religion and primarily serve and hire those who share the faith.

However, many religious ministries don’t qualify for that exemption because they serve all people regardless of their beliefs or religious affiliations. The narrowness of the exemption is what prompted the Diocese of Albany, and other related entities, to sue.

To date, the New York state courts have consistently sided with the state. The May ruling forced the plaintiffs to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. At the time, Dennis Poust, the executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference was wrong.

“We are disappointed in this ruling and believe it is wrongly decided,” Poust said in a statement. “We continue to believe that the regulatory action by the state, as well as subsequent legislative action, requiring religious organizations to provide and pay for coverage of abortion in its employee health plans is unconstitutional and unjust.”

Meanwhile, Gov. Kathy Hochul said after the decision that it was “a critical step towards protecting” abortion rights as “right-wing extremists attempt to undermine our fundamental freedoms.”

“While right-wing extremists attempt to undermine our fundamental freedoms, New York will continue standing strong to protect women’s health care and safeguard abortion rights,” Hochul said in a statement. “The Court of Appeals’ unanimous ruling to uphold New York’s nation-leading regulations for insurance coverage of abortion care is a critical step towards protecting these fundamental freedoms.”

Follow John Lavenburg on X: @johnlavenburg