The Supreme Court and a North Dakota judge have delivered powerful rebukes to government overreach, ruling that Catholic organizations cannot be forced to fund gender transitions or be denied tax exemptions based on their religious practices.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Catholic Charities in Wisconsin can opt out of state unemployment compensation programs, reinforcing religious liberty protections.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized that the government must maintain neutrality between religions and cannot discriminate based on theological differences in service provision.
- A North Dakota federal judge ruled that Catholic healthcare providers cannot be forced to fund gender-transition procedures that violate their religious beliefs.
- Both rulings represent significant victories for religious organizations against government attempts to impose secular values that conflict with faith-based principles.
- President Trump’s administration has strengthened religious liberty protections, including his 2025 executive order recognizing only biological sexes.
Supreme Court Unanimously Backs Catholic Charities in Wisconsin Tax Dispute
In a significant victory for religious freedom, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a Catholic Charities chapter in Wisconsin can opt out of the state’s unemployment compensation program. The ruling, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reversed a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that had denied the organization’s religious exemption. The case centered on whether the government could force religious organizations to participate in secular programs that may conflict with their beliefs or practices.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court had originally denied Catholic Charities’ exemption claim because the organization provided services to people of all faiths, employed non-Catholics, and did not proselytize as part of its charitable work. However, the U.S. Supreme Court found this reasoning deeply problematic, as it effectively penalized the Catholic organization for its inclusive approach to charity, an approach rooted in Catholic teaching that calls for serving all people regardless of faith.
“It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain ‘neutrality between religion and religion,'” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
Religious Liberty Protected from Government Discrimination
The Court’s decision highlighted that the government cannot discriminate between religions based on their theological approaches to service. This ruling represents a significant reinforcement of religious liberty protections at a time when faith-based organizations have increasingly found themselves at odds with government regulations that conflict with their religious convictions. The case originated when a Catholic Charities chapter in northern Wisconsin sought to join a less expensive church-run system rather than the state unemployment system.
“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,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
Both Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed concurring opinions, with Thomas citing unconstitutional religious discrimination under the “church authority doctrine” and Jackson emphasizing that the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision violated the neutrality principle of the Constitution’s Religion Clauses. The ruling could potentially affect similar programs in 46 other states, marking a significant shift in how religious exemptions are applied nationwide.
North Dakota Judge Protects Religious Healthcare Providers from Transgender Mandate
In another victory for religious liberty, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte ruled that federal agencies cannot require healthcare providers to fund gender-transition procedures if doing so violates their religious beliefs. The case was brought by the Catholic Benefits Association, an order of Catholic nuns, and two Catholic care facilities that challenged interpretations of the Affordable Care Act that would have forced them to provide coverage for procedures fundamentally at odds with their religious teachings.
“The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,” wrote Judge Peter Welte, U.S. District Judge.
Judge Welte specifically barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from mandating health plans that cover “gender-affirming care” when such requirements conflict with sincerely held religious beliefs. This ruling aligns with President Trump’s executive order signed in 2025 that recognizes only male and female biological sex, further protecting religious healthcare providers from being forced to violate their faith-based convictions regarding gender and sexuality.
A Pattern of Religious Liberty Protection Under the Trump Administration
These court victories come amid a broader pattern of religious liberty protections that have been strengthened under President Trump’s administration. The Supreme Court has recently favored religious plaintiffs in several cases, reflecting a judicial philosophy that gives substantial weight to the constitutional protection of religious exercise. The North Dakota ruling in particular supports President Trump’s consistent defense of traditional values and religious freedom against progressive attempts to impose secular ideologies on faith-based institutions.
While Judge Welte dismissed motions for summary judgment on abortion and fertility treatment issues due to underdeveloped legal arguments, the ruling on gender-transition procedures represents a clear win for religious healthcare providers. The combined effect of these court decisions is to reinforce the principle that the government must remain neutral between religions and cannot penalize organizations for operating according to their sincerely held religious beliefs, even when those beliefs run counter to progressive social agendas.
