US Supreme Court Hands Religious Organizations 9-0 Victory in Catholic Charities Decision

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s misguided ruling in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. This 9-0 decision delivered a stinging rebuke to the Wisconsin court’s liberal justices, affirmed the foresight of its conservative dissenters, and highlighted the pivotal role of Maranatha Baptist University’s amicus brief. Far more than a narrow dispute over unemployment insurance, this ruling is a landmark victory for religious organizations and liberties across the nation.

Supreme Court’s Catholic Charities Ruling: A Rebuke to Wisconsin’s Liberal Justices and a Triumph for Religious Liberty

Wisconsin’s Liberal Justices: A Flawed Ruling

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority in an opinion written by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley (now the Chief Justice), and joined by Justices Rebecca Dallet, Jill Karofsky, and Janet Protasiewicz—erred profoundly in their 4-3 decision against Catholic Charities. They ruled that the organization’s charitable work did not qualify as “religious” under state law, arguing that its services lacked overt proselytizing or exclusive focus on Catholics. This cramped interpretation ignored the fundamental Catholic teaching that serving the poor and vulnerable is, in itself, an act of faith.

Their opinion was a masterclass in judicial overreach, twisting legal principles to undermine the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. By denying Catholic Charities an exemption from Wisconsin’s unemployment compensation program, the liberal justices threatened to entangle religious organizations in secular red tape, eroding their autonomy. This ruling risked forcing faith-based groups to either abandon their missions or bow to state demands—a dangerous precedent that the U.S. Supreme Court rightly rejected.

Conservative Dissenters: Vindicated on Principle

The Wisconsin court’s conservative justices—Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, Chief Justice Ziegler (CJ at the time), and Justice Hagedorn—saw through the majority’s folly from the start. In their dissents, they argued that Catholic Charities’ work was inherently religious, rooted in a divine call to serve. They warned that the liberal majority’s narrow definition of “religious purposes” violated constitutional protections and discriminated against faith-based organizations, especially those outside the traditional “Christian” faith.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling proved them right all along. Justice Sotomayor’s opinion mirrored their reasoning, affirming that religious liberty extends to a wide range of faith-driven activities, not just worship or evangelism. The conservative dissenters’ principled stand was not only vindicated but elevated as a model of sound jurisprudence, showcasing their foresight in defending religious autonomy against state overreach.

Maranatha’s Amicus Brief: A Distinct Contribution

Maranatha Baptist University played a crucial role in this victory through its amicus brief, filed by Attorney Daniel Suhr on February 3, 2025. The brief argued that faith encompasses service, not just doctrine, and that Wisconsin’s restrictive definition of “religious” activities jeopardized the freedom of faith-based schools, charities, and ministries. The U.S. Supreme Court embraced these arguments, reinforcing the idea that religious organizations must define their own missions without state meddling.

Maranatha’s contribution was instrumental, amplifying the case’s significance beyond unemployment insurance. By highlighting the broader stakes for religious liberty, their brief helped secure a ruling that protects faith-based groups nationwide, ensuring they can operate true to their beliefs.

And MBU’s argument was not hypothetical. Religious colleges and schools were DIRECTLY in the crosshairs of the liberal majority. In fact, the majority opinion in the Wisconsin Supreme Court case actually assumed that religious schools would not be exempt (seemingly completely unaware that MBU has always been recognized as exempt!)

The stopping point of the argument presented by CCB and the sub-entities is unclear. For example, at the administrative hearing in the present case, the Archbishop of Milwaukee testified that he is responsible for overseeing numerous grammar schools and high schools, 10 hospitals, and five colleges. Under the petitioners’ argument, these entities’ employees, numbering in the thousands, would seemingly lack coverage under the state unemployment system. (Majority opinion fn 12 at 22.)

The Dissent pointed this out explicitly, citing Maranatha’s amicus brief in an astonishing exchange:

The majority’s footnote expressing indignation at the prospect that religious colleges, schools, and hospitals might be exempt under Catholic Charities’ reading of the exemption appears to prejudge issues not before this court. Amicus curiae, Maranatha Baptist University, et al., comprises a collection of faith-based nonprofits that primarily provide education. Its brief notes that a number of its members currently qualify for the exemption under Wis. Stat. § 108.02(15)(h)2., but would likely lose that exemption if this court upholds the court of appeals. Amicus Br. Maranatha Baptist University, et al., at 5-6. Amicus argues “[t]he federal government has long counted religious schools as being operated primarily for religious purposes.” Id. at 9 n.1 (citing Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 28-87, U.S. Dept. of Labor (June 10, 1987)) (“‘The second category of services exempt from the required coverage are those performed in the employ of religious schools and other entities . . . .'”). The majority simply ignores this argument.

Curiously, the majority’s assumption that Catholic colleges and schools cannot qualify for the exemption exists in tension with the cases upon which it relies. The majority analogizes its test to cases applying the ministerial exception under the First Amendment. In each of the cases the majority cites, however, the religious school received the exception. Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. _, 140 S. Ct. 2049 (2020); Coulee Cath. Schs. v. LIRC, 2009 WI 88, 320 Wis. 2d 275, 768 N.W.2d 868; see also Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. E.E.O.C., 565 U.S. 171 (2012). The majority neglects to explain why Catholic colleges and schools receive such radically different treatment under the test it employs in this case. (Dissenting opinion fn 18 at 35.)

Beyond Unemployment: A Precedent for Religious Freedom

This decision reverberates far beyond the immediate issue of unemployment compensation. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling strengthens the legal foundation for religious exemptions in areas like labor laws, education, and charitable operations. Building on cases like Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021), it shields faith-based organizations from government efforts to condition rights and benefits on religious choices and principles.

This is a vital ruling with far-reaching ramifications for religious schools, ministries, and charities. It guarantees their right to live out their faith through service, free from punitive regulations.

Conclusion: A Win for Faith, Thanks to Conservative Wisdom and Maranatha

The Catholic Charities decision is a triumph for religious liberty, exposing the Wisconsin liberal justices’ flawed reasoning and affirming the conservative dissenters’ wisdom. The ruling safeguards faith-based organizations well beyond the case at hand. This is a call to celebrate—and a reminder to remain vigilant in defending the freedoms that protect religious organizations from government overreach.