Religious groups may be allowed to opt out of unemployment compensation laws by the Supreme Court

The Wisconsin Employment Compensation System: Catholic Charities, the First State, and the First U.S. Supreme Court: Why We Can’t Pay into It

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared openly doubtful on Monday about Wisconsin’s refusal to exempt Catholic Charities from making payments into the state’s mandatory unemployment system.

Ironically, the case comes from Wisconsin, which in 1932, at the height of the Great Depression, became the first state in the nation to set up an unemployment compensation program.

The experiment failed because paying into the fund was optional and employers dropped out of it in droves. But three years later, Congress enacted a federal-state unemployment system that required all employers, including non-profits, to pay into the system so that employees who lose their jobs can pay their basic bills. The only exemptions were for religious employers who conduct programs that are for religious reasons.

The state of Wisconsin is probably playing a weak hand at the Supreme Court. Catholic Charities is a revered organization that does everything from providing aid to the needy to aiding in the resettlement of refugees. The Catholic Church’s position has been supported many times by the Supreme Court and seven of thenine justices were raised Catholic.

“I don’t think that detracts from the fact that this is a religious mission and that we must abide by it,” says Ericrassbach, a lawyer for Catholic Charities. The Catholic Church tells people that they should help other people.

The state in its briefs contends that the work that Catholic Charities does is “typical” of the work done by other non-profits, and that without a religious gloss on the actual services that are provided by the charity, it is just like other non-profits that must pay into the state system.

“We think that this will definitely save us some money that [Catholic Charities] can use to carry out the rest of their mission,” says lawyer Rassbach.

Are Catholics really singing hymns on the radio or Christian rock at the soup kitchen? — Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Question about Proselytizing

“Our concern is that if you pay for something you will get it,” says Laurence Dupuis who filed a brief in the case on behalf of the Economic Policy Institute and similar organizations. If the employer doesn’t have enough reserves set aside, it’s up to the employer to decide whether or not to hire, and this is especially important during deep downturns.

It would put a strain on the systems’ viability if the Catholic hospitals and religious employers chose to opt out of their state insurance systems.

Kagan acknowledged that there were many hard questions in the area. I think it is fundamental that we don’t treat some religions better than others. And we certainly don’t do it based on the content of the religious doctrine that those religions preach.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wondered about the definition of proselytizing. “Are they playing hymns on the radio or Christian Rock at the Evangelical soup kitchen?” she asked. Is that proselytization because you’re forced to sit there and listen to it?

Justice Neil Gorsuch interrupted at that point. Isn’t there anyone at the soup kitchen with nuns or priests? The bishop, you know, is overseeing it. Come on, I mean.

Chief Justice John Roberts pressed the point with a hypothetical, “What if a religion that thinks it is a sin to eat meat opens a vegetarian restaurant?” Do they have a claim to being exempt from taxes?