‘Catholic Charities v Wisconsin Creates a Dangerous Precedent’

 

Many conservatives are elated over the 9-0 decision of the federal Supreme Court that overturned a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling.  The State Court had denied an exemption to the Catholic Charities Bureau from a tax to support the unemployment compensation system, reasoning that the latter was not a religious organization.

Justice Thomas thoroughly demolished the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s argument, showing that the Catholic Charities Bureau is in truth a religious organization, and, therefore, is likely eligible for the exemption (though Justice Jackson’s concurrence muddies the water on that somewhat).  But having made that determination, we must ask an essential question, ‘Do the federal courts have jurisdiction in this matter?’

The answer is a resounding No.

The federal justices base their ruling on the First Amendment of the United States constitution, that the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated its Establishment clause.  However, as we have pointed out before, the First Amendment’s religion clauses are directed at Congress:  ‘Congress shall make no law . . . .’  The States are free to make religious arrangements per their own laws, traditions, constitutions, etc.  It is striking that Wisconsin’s own constitutional provisions regulating the relationship between Church and government (Article I, Section 18) are not mentioned at all in the federal Supreme Court’s ruling.  And the erroneous incorporation doctrine related to the US constitution’s problematic 14^th Amendment doesn’t help the federal justices’ case one bit.  So don’t bring that stinking fish carcass up in here; throw it back into the pond of unconstitutional theories out of which you dredged it.

This case should have ended with Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, with that Court’s decision being grounded in Wisconsin’s own constitutional text.  If the decision was found to be unjust, the voters of Wisconsin could have remedied that by replacing the justices who were in the wrong via elections.

What we have gotten instead is far worse than a controversy that would have affected only one religious organization in a single State:  We now have another federal Supreme Court precedent that could invalidate all State efforts to reinvigorate Christianity in public life.  Here are the key paragraphs from the unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Sotomayor:

‘“The clearest command of the Establishment Clause” is that the government may not “officially prefe[r]” one religious denomination over another. Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228, 244 (1982). This principle of denominational neutrality bars States from passing laws that “‘aid or oppose’” particular religions, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97, 106 (1968), or interfere in the “competition between sects,” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 314 (1952). The Establishment Clause’s “prohibition of denominational preferences is inextricably connected with the continuing vitality of the Free Exercise Clause,” too. Larson, 456 U. S., at 245. That is because the “‘fullest realization of true religious liberty requires that government’” refrain from “‘favoritism among sects.’” Id., at 246 (quoting School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 305 (1963) (Goldberg, J., concurring)). Government actions that favor certain religions, the Court has warned, convey to members of other faiths that “‘they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.’” Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U. S. 290, 309 (2000).

‘To guard against that serious harm, this Court in Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228, set a demanding standard for the government to justify differential treatment across religions on denominational lines. See id., at 244–246. When a state law establishes a denominational preference, courts must “treat the law as suspect” and apply “strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality.” Id., at 246. The government bears the burden to show that the relevant law, or application thereof, is “closely fitted to further a compelling governmental interest.” Id., at 251 (internal quotation marks omitted).

‘A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination. Take, for instance, a law that treats “a religious service of Jehovah’s Witnesses . . . differently than a religious service of other sects” because the former is “less ritualistic, more unorthodox, [and] less formal.” Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U. S. 67, 69 (1953). Or consider an exemption that applies only to religious organizations that perform baptisms, engage in monotheistic worship, or hold services on Sunday. Such laws establish a preference for certain religions based on the content of their religious doctrine, namely, how they worship, hold services, or initiate members and whether they engage in those practices at all. Such official differentiation on theological lines is fundamentally foreign to our constitutional order, for “[t]he law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma.” Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 728 (1872).’

Whether ‘a state law establishes a denominational preference’ is frankly none of the federal judiciary’s business.  This is a task they have unlawfully appropriated for themselves, and it once again brings to mind the many warnings of Anti-Federalists and of old republicans of the Virginia/Jeffersonian kind about the tendency of the US constitution’s judicial branch to silently arrogate more and more power unto itself until it becomes an all-powerful body.  From Thomas Jefferson himself:

‘The Judiciary of the US. is the subtle corps of sappers & miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.  . . .  There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming instrumentality of the Supreme court’ (Michael Boldin, ‘Thomas Jefferson’s Greatest Fear: The Federal Judiciary and the Death of Liberty,’ tenthamendmentcenter.com).

But even more concerning than this is what those paragraphs from the Catholic Charities ruling mean for State efforts to uphold and strengthen their various Christian cultures.  . . .

The rest is at https://thehayride.com/2025/06/garlington-catholic-charities-v-wisconsin-creates-a-dangerous-precedent/.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!