In two major victories for religious freedom, federal courts have ruled that Catholic organizations in Wisconsin and North Dakota cannot be forced to violate their beliefs by the government, sending a clear message that faith-based charities deserve protection under the First Amendment.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Catholic Charities in Wisconsin can claim a religious exemption from state unemployment tax, overturning a lower court decision.
- U.S. District Judge Peter Welte protected Catholic healthcare providers in North Dakota from being forced to perform gender-transition procedures that violate their religious beliefs.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized that the government must maintain “neutrality between religion and religion” and cannot impose denominational preferences.
- The Wisconsin ruling could potentially affect similar unemployment compensation programs in 46 other states.
- President Trump’s executive order recognizing only biological sex as male or female aligns with the religious protections being upheld in these cases.
Supreme Court Unanimously Protects Catholic Charities in Wisconsin
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities can opt out of Wisconsin’s unemployment compensation program due to religious exemptions. The ruling reversed a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that had denied the exemption because the charity provides services to people of all faiths, employs non-Catholics, and does not actively proselytize. The case began when a Catholic Charities chapter in northern Wisconsin sought to join a cheaper alternative church system instead of the state-mandated program they had participated in for over 50 years.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, emphasizing the constitutional requirement for government neutrality in religious matters. “It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain ‘neutrality between religion and religion,'” wrote Sotomayor. “There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one. When 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,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court Justice.
Religious Liberty Victory for Healthcare Providers
In a parallel development, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte ruled that federal agencies cannot require Catholic healthcare providers to fund or perform gender-transition procedures when doing so violates their religious beliefs. The North Dakota case was brought by the Catholic Benefits Association, an order of Catholic nuns, and two Catholic care facilities who objected to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ interpretation of the Affordable Care Act’s Title IX to include gender identity protections, which could have jeopardized federal funding for non-compliant providers.
“The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,” wrote Welte, U.S. District Judge.
Judge Welte barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from mandating health plans that cover “gender-affirming care” for religious organizations. However, he dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on abortion and fertility treatment issues, citing underdeveloped arguments. The ruling aligns with President Trump’s executive order signed in 2025 that recognizes only male and female biological sex, reinforcing the administration’s commitment to protecting religious liberty.
Broader Implications for Religious Freedom
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Wisconsin case could have far-reaching consequences. The ruling potentially affects similar unemployment compensation programs in 46 other states, possibly causing significant changes to the federal-state unemployment compensation system. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with the majority opinion but cited unconstitutional religious discrimination under the “church authority doctrine,” while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision violated the neutrality principle of the Constitution’s Religion Clauses.
“When 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,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court Justice.
These rulings represent the latest in a series of decisions favoring religious plaintiffs by the Supreme Court. The court is also currently considering a case involving religious objections to books containing LGBTQ content in public schools, further highlighting the ongoing judicial exploration of the intersection between religious freedoms and anti-discrimination mandates. For conservative Americans concerned about protecting religious liberty, these rulings send a clear message that faith-based organizations cannot be compelled by government agencies to violate their core religious beliefs in the name of progressive ideologies.
