\n<\/p>\n
Amid leftists\u2019 ongoing judicial coup<\/a> against the Trump administration, America\u2019s propaganda media have fomented baseless fears<\/a> that President Trump is going to \u201cdefy\u201d or \u201cignore\u201d a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court if it rules on a case in a way he doesn\u2019t like. But if these so-called \u201cdefenders of democracy\u201d are concerned about government officials \u201cignoring\u201d court rulings as they claim, where is their outrage about Democrat-led Wisconsin\u2019s apparent bid to sidestep SCOTUS in a prominent religious liberty decision issued earlier this year?<\/p>\n In June, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled<\/a> in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission<\/a><\/em> that the Wisconsin Supreme Court\u2019s denial of tax-exempt status to the state-based Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB) violated its First Amendment rights. While seemingly a major victory for religious liberty, the Christian group\u2019s \u201cwin\u201d now appears to be in jeopardy.<\/p>\n In the months since SCOTUS remanded the case back to the Wisconsin courts to remedy the violation, the Badger State\u2019s Democrat-led government has been seeking to deny the tax-exemption not only to the CCB, but to all such religious and nonreligious organizations across Wisconsin \u2014 a move the charity\u2019s legal representation says \u201cshould raise some red flags.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThis is an organization that\u2019s trying to help people and trying to do it as efficiently as possible. They have limited resources. They want to use them well. You\u2019d think the state would want to partner with that as opposed to targeting it,\u201d Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Attorney Colten Stanberry told The Federalist.<\/p>\n To fully understand the intricacies of this case requires delving into the CCB (represented by Becket) and the origins of its ongoing legal battle. <\/p>\n As The Federalist previously reported<\/a>, the Catholic Charities Bureau is the philanthropic arm of the Diocese of Superior in Wisconsin and works alongside its various sub-entities to provide charitable services as part of its core mission statement<\/a>. While its sub-groups are overseen by the CCB, the sub-entities themselves, as summarized<\/a> by Oyez, \u201care primarily funded through government contracts and do not receive direct funding from the Diocese.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNeither employees nor service recipients are required to be of any particular religious faith, and the programs do not provide religious training or attempt to promote the Catholic faith,\u201d according to Oyez. <\/p>\n In 2016, the CCB and its sub-entities pursued an exemption that would allow them not to contribute to Wisconsin\u2019s unemployment system \u2014 a request that was denied by the state Department of Workforce Development (DWD). The state agency argued that the CCB \u201cdid not qualify for the exemption\u201d because its charitable activities do not hold a \u201cprimarily\u201d religious purpose.<\/p>\n When an administrative law judge overturned DWD\u2019s decision, the agency petitioned the Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, which overruled the judge\u2019s edict. The case came to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which agreed with the DWD\u2019s assertion that the CCB doesn\u2019t qualify for the tax exemption because it didn\u2019t establish that it operates for a primarily religious purpose.<\/p>\n After taking up and hearing arguments in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court\u2019s decision this past June. Writing for the court, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted<\/a> that the Wisconsin Supreme Court\u2019s \u201capplication of [existing law] to petitioners violates the First Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain \u2018neutrality between religion and religion.\u2019 \u2026 There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,\u201d Sotomayor wrote. \u201cWhen the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny. Because Wisconsin has transgressed that principle without the tailoring necessary to survive such scrutiny, the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.\u201d<\/p>\n Speaking with The Federalist, Stanberry noted that in cases such as this, in which SCOTUS \u201crevers[ed] the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court,\u201d that \u201ctypically means that you do the opposite of whatever the Wisconsin Supreme Court did.\u201d <\/p>\n \u201cBecause the Wisconsin Supreme Court didn\u2019t give [the CCB] the exemption, the right remedy would be to give [it] the exemption,\u201d Stanberry said. \u201cOther times, the Supreme Court will use the term \u2018vacate,\u2019 which means, \u2018We\u2019re just taking that decision off the books and you get another chance, lower court.\u2019 But in this instance, they used the term \u2018reverse,\u2019 and so what the Wisconsin Supreme Court should do is give us the tax exemption that we\u2019ve been seeking for almost a decade now.\u201d<\/p>\n It seems, however, that Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul<\/a>, a Democrat, had other plans in mind. <\/p>\n A month after the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision, Kaul\u2019s office sent a letter to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, asking that additional briefing be held to decide how to remedy the situation. <\/p>\n Authored by Assistant Attorney General Colin Roth, the Democrat AG\u2019s team noted that, in the state\u2019s view, \u201cthe mandate here leaves a critical issue undecided: the appropriate remedy for the First Amendment violation identified in Catholic Charities<\/em>.\u201d Roth specifically argued that there are two possible resolutions to the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision: to grant the CCB the exemption, or to \u201celiminate[]\u201d the exemption \u201centirely.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThat remedial question remains unanswered here. The U.S. Supreme Court held that this case \u2018involve[d] [a] paradigmatic form of denominational discrimination\u2019 \u2026 but it did not hold that Wisconsin must eliminate that discrimination by extending the statutory exemption at issue to Petitioners (or, for that matter, by eliminating the exemption altogether). Instead, the Court remained studiously silent on the fate of Petitioners\u2019 request for an exemption, leaving this remedial choice \u2018in state-court hands, subject to subsequent definitive disposition by the State\u2019s legislature,’\u201d Roth wrote. \u201cRespondents therefore respectfully request that the Wisconsin Supreme Court order briefing that addresses the unanswered remedial question.\u201d<\/p>\n The Becket Fund issued a response letter on the CCB\u2019s behalf a day later, in which Vice President and Senior Counsel Eric Rassbach urged the Wisconsin Supreme Court to deny the state\u2019s request. He notably argued that SCOTUS\u2019s decision in the Catholic Charities <\/em>case, \u201cwhich reversed this Court\u2019s prior opinion, cannot be read to allow anything other than extension of the tax exemption to Petitioners.\u201d<\/p>\n Unfortunately for the Catholic Charities Bureau, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted<\/a> Kaul\u2019s request. In its Sept. 18 order, the Badger State\u2019s highest court directed parties to \u201cfile simultaneous briefs regarding the appropriate remedial measures\u201d within 30 days \u2014 a decision that prompted a sharp dissent from conservative Justices Rebecca Bradley and Annette Ziegler.<\/p>\nBackground<\/h2>\n
Wisconsin Plays Political Games<\/h2>\n