The Supreme Court heard arguments regarding a Catholic charity in Wisconsin seeking a tax exemption that had been denied on the basis that its activities were considered primarily charitable and secular. Justices expressed concern about whether different treatment of religions based on proselytization practices was constitutional. Questions arose about the challenges of assessing religious activities in charitable work, highlighting the complexity of applying First Amendment protections in tax exemption cases. Justices emphasized the importance of not favoring one religion over another in legal interpretations.
Some religions proselytize, Justice Elena Kagan said Monday. Other religions don't. Why are we treating some religions better than others based on that element of religious doctrine?
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch echoed the point. Isn't it a fundamental premise of our First Amendment that the state shouldn't be picking and choosing between religions, he said.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked a lawyer for the state what the charity would have to do to, at a minimum, to qualify for the exemption.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court had ruled that the group's activities were primarily charitable and secular and that it did not attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith.
Collection
[
|
...
]