Faith in Action: Why the Supreme Court Was Right to Side with Catholic Charities

[AustinLiberator]

“The First Amendment forbids governments from determining which religious beliefs or practices are religious enough to warrant protection.”
— Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (2025)

---

I. The Question at the Heart of the Case

Who decides what counts as “religious”—the church or the state?

That is the question the Supreme Court unanimously answered on June 5, when it ruled in favor of Catholic Charities Bureau, a nonprofit social services arm of the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin. At issue was whether Catholic Charities—a group dedicated to feeding the hungry, housing the poor, and caring for the vulnerable—was “religious enough” to qualify for a tax exemption under state unemployment law.

Wisconsin said no. Because Catholic Charities did not explicitly preach or proselytize in the course of its social services, the state argued it was “primarily secular” and thus ineligible for the religious exemption. But the Court found this to be a clear violation of the First Amendment.

The unanimous ruling sends a strong message to every government in America: you may not sit in judgment over the way faith is expressed—whether through sermon or service.

---

II. Religious Neutrality Means Letting Faith Speak in Many Forms

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the Court, rejected the state’s attempt to draw lines between what it considers “religious” and “non-religious” conduct. Catholic Charities operates under Catholic moral theology, which teaches that loving one’s neighbor through acts of charity is itself a religious duty. The fact that these services are offered without sermons or sacraments does not make them secular.

“The state cannot deny an exemption because it disfavors a religious organization’s mode of faith expression,” wrote Sotomayor.

This is a watershed moment for religious pluralism. Not every faith is expressed in a pulpit. Some feed the hungry. Some shelter the homeless. Some serve in silence. All are protected.

---

III. The Thomas Concurrence: Recognizing Church Autonomy

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, wrote separately to emphasize another principle: church autonomy. He criticized Wisconsin for ignoring the fact that Catholic Charities is canonically governed by the Diocese—even if legally incorporated separately. That separation exists to comply with civil liability rules, not to divide the Church from itself.

The state’s refusal to recognize the internal structure of the Church, Thomas argued, is itself a constitutional trespass. Civil authorities cannot substitute their corporate logic for religious polity. In his words, the government must “defer to a church’s own understanding of its ministries.”

---

IV. The Stakes: What This Means for Faith and Freedom in America

This decision carries enormous significance, not just for Catholic charities, but for all religious organizations that serve the public in accordance with their beliefs.

1. Restoring Legal Equality

For too long, certain states have demanded that religious organizations prove they are “religious enough” by preaching, converting, or adhering to visible dogma. That standard is both theologically ignorant and constitutionally impermissible. With Catholic Charities, the Court restores equal dignity to all expressions of faith.

2. Protecting Quiet Devotion

In a noisy age, the Court affirms that quiet service is just as sacred as fiery rhetoric. Whether it’s a Catholic-run homeless shelter, a Buddhist food pantry, or a Quaker peace initiative, the law protects their religious identity even when their faith is lived, not spoken.

3. Guarding Against Government Theologians

The First Amendment draws a line not just between church and state, but between belief and bureaucracy. When governments begin deciding what “counts” as religion, they stop being neutral arbiters of law and become inquisitors in disguise.

---

V. Critics and Cautions

Secularist groups such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation decry the decision, warning it may allow faith-based nonprofits to evade regulations that apply to secular entities. But this misunderstands the ruling. The Court did not create new exemptions; it simply insisted that existing ones be applied fairly—without religious litmus tests.

As Justice Sotomayor’s opinion made clear, this case is about equal application, not special privilege.

---

VI. A Victory for Liberty, Not Just Religion

This ruling is a triumph not just for Catholic Charities, but for the American promise that no citizen—no faith—will be punished for worshiping differently. It does not elevate religion above the law; it keeps the law from becoming a tool to suppress religion.

In an era where DEI initiatives, bureaucratic overreach, and culture war fatigue threaten to drown out principle, the Court has provided a clarifying signal: faith expressed in action is still faith. And the Constitution still protects it.

---

In Liberty and Service,

David Crockett, Esq.
Editor-in-Chief, The Austin Liberator