Supreme Court rules that Catholic groups were unlawfully barred from a religious exemption
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of Catholic Church-affiliated charitable groups, saying they were wrongly denied religious exemptions from a Wisconsin tax that funds unemployment benefits.
The justices ruled unanimously that the state's decision unlawfully discriminated against the groups on the basis of religion under the free exercise clause of the Constitution's First Amendment.
The court rejected a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that said that the groups operating under the Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior were not sufficiently religious in purpose. The state already provided exemptions for religious institutions.
The First Amendment has long been interpreted to exempt religious entities from taxation.
Writing for the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the state court had "imposed a denominational preference by differentiating against religions on theological lines."
The groups involved in the case — Headwaters, Barron County Developmental Services, Diversified Services and Black River Industries — primarily serve developmentally disabled people. Their programs are open to non-Catholics.
The Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission had concluded the charitable groups were not 'operated primarily for religious purposes' under state law.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2024 upheld the state commission's finding, saying the groups' activities were mostly secular in nature and that they do not 'attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials.'
The Wisconsin unemployment compensation system was set up in 1932 to provide a safety net for people who lose their jobs. Similar programs in other states and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act also include religious exemptions.
The Catholic groups had strong backing at the Supreme Court for other Christian sects and different religious faiths.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
12 minutes ago
- Reuters
UN nuclear watchdog has limited oversight in Iran. Here's why
VIENNA, June 23 (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog, which polices the global nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has not been able to carry out inspections in Iran since Israel launched military strikes on its nuclear facilities on June 13. Below is an outline of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection powers. No. The IAEA's oversight is limited to the 191 states that are signatories to the NPT, and other countries it has separate arrangements with. Iran is a party to the NPT and thus subject to IAEA oversight including inspections meant to ensure that no nuclear material such as uranium is "diverted" for use in atomic bombs. Israel is not a party to the NPT and is the only country in the Middle East widely believed to have nuclear weapons. Israel does not confirm or deny having them. It has a limited safeguards agreement with the IAEA that provides for the agency to oversee some materials and facilities - a fraction of what Israel has and not any of what is widely believed to be its nuclear weapons programme. Iran, by contrast, has a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) with the IAEA under which it must account for all its proliferation-sensitive nuclear material, including every gram of enriched uranium. No. It is largely restricted to inspecting Iran's declared nuclear installations as provided for by its 1974 CSA - sites such as the three uranium enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow that were operating until Israel bombed them on June 13. It had regular access to those facilities until they were attacked. Since then, they have been "closed" and inspectors have not been allowed in, the IAEA has said, adding that it hopes its inspectors will return as soon as possible. Yes. A 2015 deal between Iran and major powers placed strict limits on Tehran's nuclear activities but also extended the IAEA's oversight to parts of Iran's nuclear programme not covered by the CSA, such as its production and stock of centrifuges, the machines that enrich uranium. It was the most comprehensive IAEA oversight of any country. Much of that additional oversight came from Iran agreeing, as part of the 2015 pact, to apply the Additional Protocol, an add-on to countries' CSAs that the IAEA developed to strengthen its hand in preventing nuclear proliferation. Iran has signed but never ratified the Additional Protocol. One of the most important extra tools the Additional Protocol gives the IAEA is the power to carry out snap inspections - short-notice access to locations including ones that Iran has not declared to be nuclear-related. In 2018, during his first term, President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the 2015 nuclear deal, reimposing U.S. sanctions on Iran that had been lifted as part of the agreement. In retaliation, as of the following year, Iran began pushing past the deal's limits on its nuclear activities but also scaled back the extra IAEA oversight introduced by the deal. In February 2021 Iran said it would no longer carry out its extra commitments under the 2015 deal, including implementation of the Additional Protocol. It struck a deal with the IAEA to keep monitoring equipment like surveillance cameras added under the deal rolling, but ordered them all removed in June 2022. Reducing the IAEA's oversight not only took away the important tool of snap inspections. It also left blind spots in the areas to which extra oversight had been applied. The IAEA now says it has lost so-called "continuity of knowledge" for so many years that it will never be able to fully piece together what happened in areas including the production and inventory of centrifuges and certain key centrifuge parts, as well as Iran's stock of "yellowcake" - uranium that has not been enriched. The fact many centrifuges are unaccounted for means it cannot be ruled out that they will be used to enrich uranium in secret at an undeclared facility. Such a facility would be easy to hide in a relatively small building such as a warehouse. The IAEA says it cannot guarantee Iran's nuclear activity is entirely for peaceful purposes but it also has no credible indications of a coordinated nuclear weapons programme. Iran has threatened to pull out of the NPT, while at the same time saying it would not develop nuclear weapons if it did. Tehran has complained that the treaty and non-proliferation regime failed to protect it from attack by a country with a nuclear arsenals, the United States, and another widely believed to have one, Israel. The NPT allows for withdrawal by a party at three months' notice "if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country". The only country to announce its withdrawal from the NPT is North Korea in 2003, which expelled IAEA inspectors before testing nuclear weapons.
Reuters
18 minutes ago
- Reuters
Who's selling? Breaking down the dollar's breakdown
ORLANDO, Florida, June 23 (Reuters) - With the dollar poised for its worst first-half performance since 1986, the selling may seem to be coming from everyone, everywhere, across every asset class. To some extent, that's true. Investors globally appear to be gradually reducing their exposure to dollar-denominated assets, driving the greenback down to its lowest level against a basket of major currencies in three and a half years. But some pressure points are greater than others. Unsurprisingly, non-U.S. investors are responsible for the bulk of the selling, with equity-related selling pressure concentrated among European investors and fixed income-based selling mostly coming from Asia. According to Bank of America's FX strategy team, European "real money" investors - institutions like pension funds and insurance companies - are the main drivers of the dollar's selloff in the second quarter, slashing their dollar positioning to the lowest since 2022 in a matter of weeks. But the story might not be so straightforward. While European investors increasing their dollar hedge ratios have garnered much attention recently, research shows that most of the dollar's average daily declines in the last few months have come in Asian trading hours, suggesting Asian holders of U.S. bonds may also be increasing their dollar hedges. So which is the bigger drag on the dollar: equity-led geographic diversification or fixed income selling? And where is the selling mostly coming from: Europe or Asia? At first glance, one might pin the blame on equities, as foreign holdings of U.S. stocks are larger than their U.S. debt assets in nominal terms. But percentage-wise, overseas investors' footprint in the U.S. fixed income markets is larger. Foreigners own just over $31 trillion of U.S. securities, with $17.6 trillion in equities and $13.6 trillion of bond holdings, according to the Bank for International Settlements. That represents around 18% of the overall U.S. equity market, compared with 21% of the U.S. agency and corporate bond market and a third of the U.S. Treasury market. Analysts at UBS estimate that euro zone investors account for 25% of the foreign-owned U.S. equity universe, having loaded up on U.S. stocks in recent years. This makes the dollar particularly vulnerable if Wall Street continues to underperform European and Asian markets, they reckon. Breaking down these exposures even further, they find that foreign investors' total net unhedged dollar asset exposure is $23.5 trillion. Of this, investors in G10 countries hold $13.4 trillion, with $9.3 trillion in equities and $4.1 trillion in fixed income. These are vast numbers, and it wouldn't require much of a switch to trigger large cross-border flows. UBS calculates that a hypothetical 5% reduction in G10 countries' dollar position would equate to around $670 billion of dollar selling. Most G10 countries, of course, are in Europe, so the bulk of that selling would come from there. While European investors have mostly been unloading equities thus far, it's good to remember that the region's investors significantly increased their exposure to U.S. bonds over the last decade too, particularly the 2014-2022 years when the European Central Bank's main interest rates were negative. UBS analysts estimate euro zone investors bought $3.4 trillion in foreign debt since 2014. So even a modest rebalancing away from U.S. bonds could have a meaningful impact on prices. Ultimately though, Asian investors still appear to wield more muscle in the U.S. bond market, owning around a third of foreign-held U.S. Treasuries and agency debt. And that figure is probably much higher given that euro zone, Caribbean and UK holdings include assets held on behalf of Asian countries, notably China. Up until this point, there has been no wholesale dumping of U.S. assets, and neither is there likely to be. But it is notable that U.S. assets are increasingly being held by private sector investors, who have replaced central banks as the main buyers of U.S. assets in recent years. The private sector is typically considered more price-sensitive than the official sector. That means these positions may prove less sticky than in the past, especially if the idea of waning "U.S. exceptionalism" truly takes root. (The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters) Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn and X.
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
- Labcorp was the blockbuster Supreme Court case that wasn't
June 23 (Reuters) - When the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year agreed to take up medical testing company Laboratory Corporation of America's appeal of a class certification order, it was one of the buzziest cases of the term. The parties, along with amici in 19 friend-of-the-court briefs and the legal press – me included – cast it as a potentially monumental matter, one that could upend class action litigation by making it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring cases. What we got instead was … nothing. A little over a month after oral argument, the high court on June 5 dismissed the case, opens new tab as improvidently granted, though Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the majority's one sentence order. In issuing the so-called dismiss as improvidently or DIG, the justices tacitly admitted that it was a mistake to grant certiorari in the first place, though presumably not because of the question presented. The question that remains unanswered is whether a class be certified if it contains uninjured members – an issue that the high court circled in two prior class certification decisions, Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo in 2016 and TransUnion v. Ramirez in 2021, but left open. Why instead of a firecracker did Labcorp v Davis turn out to be a dud? The most likely answer is procedurally nuanced, involving a tangle of superseding district court orders. Still, how the case unspooled offers a window into when and why the justices DIG a case, a rare move where the court takes no action, instead leaving the appellate decision in place. Here, it meant a win for a class of blind plaintiffs suing Labcorp for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, allowing them to proceed with their suit in Los Angeles federal court. An unconventional move by Deepak Gupta, who represented the class action plaintiffs, could also provide a model for advocates looking to DIG a case – but more on that later. Labcorp did not respond to requests for comment, and the company's outside counsel, Jones Day partner Noel Francisco, declined to comment through a firm spokesperson. A bit of context: Legal scholars say that from 1955 to 2005, the justices disposed of an average of two to three cases per term via DIGs, a move that typically requires agreement from at least six justices. There was one such dismissal in 2023-2024 and a total of three this term. (The other two were both securities class actions, with Gupta also getting a DIG in litigation against chipmaker Nvidia. The other case involved Meta's Facebook.) The court often declines to offer an explanation for DIG-ing a case, leaving onlookers to speculate on what went awry, said Michael Solimine, a professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law and co-author of the DIG study, opens new tab, via email. For example, after oral argument the justices might realize there was a jurisdictional issue, or they might identify another problem that made the case a poor vehicle to address the question at hand, Solimine said. 'Or it could simply be that there was no majority that could decide the case.' In Labcorp, according to Kavanaugh's dissent, the obstacle that kept the court from deciding the case was mootness – meaning, technically, that the class certification order that Labcorp appealed was no longer in effect and had been supplanted by subsequent district court orders. Kavanaugh, however, deemed the concern 'insubstantial' and wrote that he would have ruled in favor of the company on the merits. Originally filed in 2020, the suit against Labcorp was brought on behalf of visually impaired people who were unable to use check-in kiosks when arriving for blood draws or other medical tests. Labcorp argued that thousands of class members were uninterested in using the kiosks, preferring to check in with a person at the front desk. That meant they sustained no injury and lacked standing to sue under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Labcorp said. U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Olguin in May of 2022 certified a damages class. Labcorp had appealed the order, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year in an 8-page, unpublished opinion, opens new tab had upheld Olguin's decision. But there was a wrinkle. While Labcorp's interlocutory appeal was pending, the district court modified the class certification order two times to tweak how the class was defined. That meant the order before the Supreme Court was inoperative, Gupta argued for the class action plaintiffs. With no live controversy, any decision by the high court would be nothing more than an advisory opinion, the Gupta Wessler co-founder said. This jurisdictional argument wasn't something the class action plaintiffs initially flagged in opposing, opens new tab Labcorp's cert petition (though they raised it in their respondent's brief, opens new tab when they suggested that the court DIG the case, as did seven law professors in an amicus brief, opens new tab). In an unusual step, Gupta, who was hired after cert was granted, filed a letter, opens new tab with the court on April 23, six days before oral argument and after briefing was complete, to reiterate the jurisdictional problems and again ask the court to DIG the case. Sending the letter felt like 'waving a red flag in front of a bull,' Gupta told me, drawing the focus on procedural questions rather than the merits. 'I wanted to make sure the court understood the problem here.' Writing in response, opens new tab, Francisco called the letter 'nothing more than an improper surreply,' and said the arguments were meritless. The justices' interest was piqued. During oral arguments in April, Justice Clarence Thomas asked why the court had jurisdiction to rule on a lower court's "inoperative" order. Later, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, 'I still don't see how this is not an advisory opinion.' And Justice Elena Kagan remarked, 'We're staring at the wrong order.' Little wonder the court opted for a DIG.
