The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in the case of Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission has been widely celebrated by conservative legal experts and religious freedom advocates as a significant victory for religious liberty in America. The decision, which struck down Wisconsin’s attempt to revoke the Catholic Charities Bureau’s (CCB) religious tax exemption, was hailed by the First Liberty Institute as a ‘huge moment’ for religious freedom and a clear rejection of government overreach.
In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Tiffany Dunkin, a legal fellow with the First Liberty Institute, expressed strong support for the ruling, stating that it reaffirmed the constitutional principle that the government cannot determine what counts as religious activity. ‘What Wisconsin was doing was deciding what it means to be religious,’ Dunkin said. ‘And the First Amendment prohibits the government from doing that.’ She argued that the Court’s decision is a long-standing affirmation of First Amendment protections and a powerful message to all faiths and charitable organizations that they have the right to define their own religious expressions without government interference.
The case centered on whether CCB, affiliated with the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, was ‘religious enough’ to receive the same benefits as churches or houses of worship. Wisconsin argued that CCB’s provision of critical care services for people with disabilities and mental health needs did not constitute ‘primarily religious’ activities. The Court, however, ruled that CCB’s work, while secular in nature, was still rooted in its religious mission and therefore entitled to the same protections as other faith-based organizations.
Dunkin warned that had the Supreme Court ruled against CCB, it would have ‘grave implications’ for religious charities and ministries across the country. ‘It would allow the government to step into the religious doctrine of all faiths more than our Founding Fathers ever intended,’ she cautioned. Dunkin emphasized that the ruling sends a clear message to religious groups that they can continue to operate in the public sphere without fear of government overreach, especially when providing essential services to those in need.
The decision is part of a broader trend of Supreme Court rulings that are seen as strengthening religious rights protections, according to legal experts. Dunkin also expressed hope that this ruling would embolden religious organizations to continue their charitable work without fear of government interference. ‘They should feel emboldened to continue to do what they feel called to do by their religious faith,’ she stated, particularly in the realm of charitable service.
While the ruling is specifically about religious liberty and nonprofit exemptions, Dunkin noted that the case is not isolated. Similar challenges have been raised in other states, where governments have attempted to limit the scope of religious activities by questioning whether services like food, clothing, or shelter for the needy are inherently religious. Dunkin argued that such questions are misguided and that the decision serves as a model for future cases.