Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in case about tax exemptions and religion
Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in case about tax exemptions and religion
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Ketanji Brown Jackson lights up stage at Broadway musical "& Juliet"
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson treated "& Juliet" fans to a special performance for one night only!
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 5 said Wisconsin should not have denied a tax exemption to a Catholic Charities chapter, the latest in a series of rulings the justices have decided in favor of faith groups.
The court unanimously ruled that the state violated the First Amendment's protection for religion and discriminated against the religious organization in Wisconsin.
"There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote.
Wisconsin's law, which is similar to most states' and the federal government's, grants exemptions from its unemployment insurance program for certain church-controlled organizations that are 'operated primarily for religious purposes.'
Wisconsin said the Catholic Charities bureau and four affiliates had to participate in the state's unemployment benefits system because the work being performed is primarily secular, even if it's motivated by religious belief.
There's no religious instruction during job training, placement and coaching offered to disabled people through the affiliates, the state said. Neither employees nor the people they serve have to be Catholic. The Catholic Charities bureau and their affiliates are incorporated separately from the diocese.
The purpose of the exemption is to keep the government from violating the First Amendment by getting too involved in a church's employment decisions. Because an employee is not eligible for unemployment benefits if the person was fired for misconduct, Wisconsin doesn't want to have to decide the legitimacy of a firing that was based on matters of religious faith and doctrine.
More: Pride puppies and a charter school: a look at the blockbuster religion cases at the Supreme Court
Catholic Charities, which was represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, argued it was being discriminated against because – unlike other religious organizations – the charitable arm is incorporated separately from the diocese and because it offers its services without proselytizing.
Wisconsin's attorney pointed out that Catholic Charities had participated in the state's unemployment system since 1971 without requesting an exemption. Its initial registration described the nature of its operations as 'charitable,' 'educational,' and 'rehabilitative,' not 'religious,' according to filings.
Colin T. Roth, assistant attorney general for Wisconsin, warned that a broad exemption policy could leave more than 1 million employees in the country who work for religiously affiliated hospitals outside of the unemployment benefits system.
If fewer employers pay into the system, Roth and outside municipal groups said, states might choose to shut down all religious exemptions.
Catholic Charities said it prefers to protect employees through the church's unemployment program. The maximum weekly benefits are the same as the state's program and can be more generous and received more quickly, according to the church.
Labor rights groups say the church's unemployment program is not as good because it's not backed up by the government if funds run out. And workers in a private system are ineligible for supplemental federal benefits such as those provided during the pandemic.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Right-wing protester shattered Supreme Court window with air gun, police say
Police, Shin Bet, and court security are investigating to identify the suspects, the police stated. Security footage from the Supreme Court revealed that around 9:00 p.m. on Friday, during a protest outside the building, one of the court's large panoramic windows was damaged, Israel Police announced on Saturday. Security forces believe the window was shattered by a non-lethal weapon, such as an air gun or slingshot, Israel police confirmed. Police, Shin Bet, and court security are investigating to identify the suspects, the police stated. The damage was discovered following a large and heated right-wing demonstration held outside the court on Friday, which drew an estimated 10,000 participants. Protesters voiced strong criticism of the judicial system and the government's legal advisor. Following the incident, Opposition Leader Yair Lapid stated, "The government organized the demonstration during which the Supreme Court window was smashed. This incident is a direct result of their incitement. I warned over a month ago—if the prime minister doesn't stop this, it will end in political murder." Democrats Party Chairman Yair Golan added that a justice minister "who does not recognize the authority of the Supreme Court President, and a prime minister under criminal indictment who attacks the rule of law," have paved the way for violence against the judicial system. "The shooting at the Supreme Court is a grave and unprecedented act, driven by a campaign of incitement. The instigators sit in the government. The responsibility lies with them. The duty to fix it lies with us."
CNBC
3 hours ago
- CNBC
Trump says he thinks the government has a 'very easy case' against Kilmar Abrego Garcia
President Donald Trump on Saturday said that it wasn't his decision to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, back to the U.S. to face federal charges, saying the "Department of Justice decided to do it that way, and that's fine." "That wasn't my decision," Trump said of Abrego Garcia's return in a phone call with NBC News on Saturday. "It should be a very easy case" for federal prosecutors, the president added. Trump added that he did not speak with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele about Abrego Garcia's return, even though the two men spoke about Abrego Garcia during an April meeting in the Oval Office. His remarks came after Abrego Garcia arrived back in the U.S. on Friday and was charged in an indictment alleging he transported people who were not legally in the country. The indictment came amid a protracted legal battle over whether to bring him back from El Salvador that escalated all the way up to the Supreme Court. Abrego Garcia's family and lawyers have called him a family man, while Trump and his administration have alleged that he is a member of the gang MS-13. The case drew national attention amid the Trump administration's broader push for mass deportations. After Abrego Garcia's deportation, lawyers for the Trump administration said he was deported in an "administrative error," as Abrego Garcia had previous legal protection from deportation to El Salvador. Still, the Trump administration did not attempt to bring Abrego Garcia back, even as the Supreme Court ruled that it had to "facilitate" his return to the U.S. Democrats, including Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., had for weeks said that Abrego Garcia was denied due process when he was detained and deported, arguing that he should have been allowed to defend himself from deportation before he was sent to El Salvador. Trump on Saturday called Van Hollen, who went to visit Abrego Garcia in jail in El Salvador in April, a "loser" for defending the man's right to due process. "He's a loser. The guy's a loser. They're going to lose because of that same thing. That's not what people want to hear," the president said about Van Hollen. "He's trying to defend a man who's got a horrible record of abuse, abuse of women in particular. No, he's a total loser, this guy." On Friday, Attorney General Pam Bondi alleged that Abrego Garcia "was a smuggler of humans and children and women. He made over 100 trips, the grand jury found, smuggling people throughout our country." In a statement Friday, Abrego Garcia's lawyer called Bondi's move "an abuse of power, not justice." —
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court allows DOGE staffers to access Social Security data
June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing members of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency to access personal Social Security Administration data. On Friday, the Court's six conservatives granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. Opposing the injunction were the three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. There are 69 million retirees, disabled workers, dependents and survivors who receive Social Security benefits, representing 28.75% of the U.S. population. In a separate two-page order issued Friday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration for now to shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. This vote also was 6-3 with no written dissenting opinions. In the two-page unsigned order on access, the court said: "We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work." The conservatives are Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three of them were nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, appointed by President Barack Obama, had ruled that DOGE staffers had no need to access the specific data. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, declined to block Hollander's decision. The lawsuit was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans. They alleged broader access to personal information would violate a federal law, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. "This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," the groups said in a statement. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward." Social Security Works posted on X: "No one in history -- no commissioner, no president, no one -- has ever had the access that these DOGE minions have." White House spokesperson Liz Huston after the ruling told NBC News that "the Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law." Brown Jackson wrote a nine-page dissenting opinion that the "Government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court's intervention. In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." She concluded her dissent by writing: "The Court opts instead to relieve the Government of the standard obligations, jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking and creates grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process." Kathleen Romig, who worked as a senior adviser at the agency during the Biden administration, told CNN that Americans should be concerned about how DOGE has handled highly sensitive data so far. She said the personal data runs "from cradle to grave." "While the appeals court considers whether DOGE is violating the law, its operatives will have 'God-level' access to Social Security numbers, earnings records, bank routing numbers, mental and reproductive health records and much more," Romig, who now is director of Social Security and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. When Trump became president again on Jan. 20, he signed an executive order establishing DOGE with the goal of "modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity." Nearly a dozen DOGE members have been installed at the agency, according to court filings. In all, there are about 90 DOGE workers. DOGE, which was run by billionaire Elon Musk until he left the White House one week ago, wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency. "These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government's records to much-needed scrutiny," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the court motion. The data includes Social Security numbers, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, parents' names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions for disability benefits and use of Medicare. SSA also has data-sharing agreements with the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiffs wrote: "The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure -- and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it." Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, who was sworn in to the post on May 7, said in a statement: that"The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." On May 23, Roberts temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take. Musk called Social Security "the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time" during an interview with Joe Rogan on Feb. 28. The Social Security system, which started in 1935, transfers current workers' payroll tax payments to people who are already retired. The payroll tax is a mandatory tax paid by employees and employers. The total current tax rate is 12.4%. There is a separate 2.9% tax for Medicare.
