Supreme Court Adds Two Potentially Significant Cases to OT2024 Docket

December certiorari grants on standing and religion are early holiday gifts for Court watchers.

Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two potentially significant cases, one concerning-church-state relations and other Article III standing.

First up is Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, in which the petition for certiorari posed the questions presented as follows:

Wisconsin exempts from its state unemployment tax system certain religious organizations that are "operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches" and that are also "operated primarily for religious purposes."

Petitioners are Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior and several sub-entities. Although all agree Catholic Charities is controlled by a church—the Diocese of Superior—the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Catholic Charities is not "operated primarily for religious purposes" and thus does not qualify for the tax exemption.  Specifically, the court held that Catholic Charities' activities are not "typical" religious activities because Catholic Charities serves and employs non-Catholics, Catholic Charities does not "attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith," and its services to the poor and needy could also be provided by secular organizations.

The questions presented are:

1. Does a state violate the First Amendment's Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior?

2. In addressing federal constitutional challenges, may state courts require proof of unconstitutionality "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

The second grant came in Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, in which the petitioners are challenging the EPA's grant of a waiver of preemption to California's low-emission vehicle regulations. Here the Court limited the grant to the standing question raised in the petition. With that noted, here is how the petitioners framed the questions presented.

Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act generally preempts States from adopting emission standards for new motor vehicles. 42 U.S.C. § 7543(a). But under Section 209(b) of that Act, EPA may grant California—and only California—a waiver from federal  preemption to set its own vehicle-emission standards. Before granting a preemption waiver, EPA must find that California "need[s]" its own emission standards "to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions." Id. § 7543(b)(1)(B).

In 2022, EPA granted California a waiver to set its own standards for greenhouse-gas emissions and to adopt a zero-emission-vehicle mandate, both expressly intended to address global climate change by reducing California vehicles' consumption of liquid fuel. Fuel producers challenged EPA's waiver as contrary to the text of Section 209(b). The D.C. Circuit rejected the challenge without reaching the merits, concluding that fuel producers' injuries were not redressable because they had not established that  vacating EPA's waiver would have any effect on automakers.

The questions presented are:

1. Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.

2. Whether EPA's preemption waiver for California's greenhouse-gas emission standards and zero-emission-vehicle mandate is unlawful.

Note that since the Court only granted the first question presented, this means the Court is not reviewing the substance of the lower court decision rejecting challenges to EPA's grant of the waiver. Some early news reports have gotten this wrong. Should the petitioners prevail in this case, at most this would entitle them to press their merits claims against the waiver grant on remand. It would also make it easier to challenge future EPA waiver grants, perhaps including a potentially forthcoming waiver that would effectively allow California to ban the sale of gasoline-fueled vehicles by 2035.

Comments

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That's what happens when the Church tries to please the world.

They were just trying to fit in with all the other charities by dropping major religious components of their activities...and it bites them in the ass. Deservedly so. At least they deserve it in a moral if not in a legal sense.

[Riva]

Catholic Charites is not the Church. It is an independently financed charity.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The real issue here is if people whom they lay off are entitled to unemployment benefits. It's not a "tax" as much as it is an insurance premium, and it's a really interesting question that I don't know the answer to.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

What's interetsting is that you would work for a place not knowing that about being laid off.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Who WOULD know?

[mse326]

I'm a little surprised they took the Wisconsin case. I don't see how there would be any first amendment issue with giving a tax exemption to only the church employer proper and not any sub entities in controls. Meaning a tax emption doesn't have to be to all or nothing. Given that it seems this case is about statutory interpretation, not the constitution, and state statutory law isn't for SCOTUS to review

[Drewski]

Has the Roberts court ever denied cert to the Catholic Church?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Of course. See, e.g., Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Baton Rouge v. Mayeux, 574 U.S. 1127 (2015).

[Joe_dallas]

.mse326 15 hours ago
" Given that it seems this case is about statutory interpretation, not the constitution, and state statutory law isn't for SCOTUS to review"

With the caveat that I have not read the applicable WI statute, your analysis seems correct.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Given that it seems this case is about statutory interpretation, not the constitution, and state statutory law isn't for SCOTUS to review

No, it’s not about how to interpret the statute. It’s about to whether applying the statute in the way the Wisconsin court wants to would violate the constitution.

[TPKeller]

"... the court held that Catholic Charities' activities are not "typical" religious activities because Catholic Charities serves and employs non-Catholics, Catholic Charities does not "attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith," and its services to the poor and needy could also be provided by secular organizations."

How to say, "We don't have a CLUE what churches do or WHY they do it!"

[Stephen Lathrop]

Does Catholic Charities hire openly gay people married to each other?

[Longtobefree]

Of course the Wisconsin Supreme Court does not understand the concept of outreach.
Or the Bible.
Ever hear the one about a good Samaritan?
Think all of the 5,000 fed were already followers of Christ?
The blind saw, the deaf herd, the lame walked and leaped; membership cards not required.

[Drewski]

I wonder if the Bible says anything about whether people should pay taxes.

[TPKeller]

"I wonder ..."

No, you don't. If you're going to make a point, at least be honest about it.

[not guilty]

Is a Christian church's payment of taxes a prohibition of exercise of the Christian religion?

IOW, did Jesus get it wrong in Matthew 22:16-21?

Of course, the instant lawsuit is brought by an organization that doesn't take Jesus's words of Matthew 18:2-6 and Luke 17:1-2 seriously either.

[Riva]

What are you ranting about now?

[not guilty]

I'm not ranting. But it doesn't take much for the Catholic Church to trigger my bullshit detector.

[Riva]

Yes, Catholic bigots can be quite sensitive.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Then maybe you should grow up, sonny.
There are Catholics but the "church' is not a person.
I think you are a jerk but I don't say that everything you do is jerky.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You are actually wrong -- this is an insurance premium and the real question is if the Church is a civil employer who is required to pay unemployment benefits to those whom they lay off, or if it isn't.

[Josh R]

The statute exempts employers who operate primarily for religious purposes. The Wisconsin Supreme Court interpreted the statute such that Catholic Charities does not operate primarily as a religious organization. Since that is an interpretation of a state law, SCOTUS has no say in that matter.

However, Catholic Charities claims when the law is interpreted in that manner, it violates both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses as applied to them because it 1) requires the state to determine what their religious doctrine is, 2) denies the Church autonomy in its operations, and 3) discriminates against churches that choose to have subsidiaries that provide secular services.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against Catholic Charities on all counts, but interestingly applied a standard that the state wins unless Catholic Charities can show beyond a reasonable doubt their claims are correct.

[Riva]

I haven’t carefully reviewed their petition or other supporting submissions. Do you happen to know how much money is at issue here? At least in Wisconsin alone.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See: https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/ui/employers/prior/taxrates-2024.htm

Your guess is as good as mine.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

WHy decide that. Just have them state on all hirings that you don't get unemployment benefits. Why drag in lawyers and malcontents and church-haters to decide what is only a work decision: Whill I work for this place , Catholic of not, if I don't get certain benefits.

Why , in trying to be fair and religion-blind, do you need to first find whatl peg the group falls in.

[Josh R]

Just have them state on all hirings that you don't get unemployment benefits.

That sounds like a liberterian viewpoint. But the majoirty want mandatory unemployment benefits.

If the unemployment benefits mandate applied to all employers, you wouldn't have to figure out what peg each group falls in. But, the majority decided to favor religion by exempting employers who operate for religious purposes and are controlled by a church. The question is whether Catholic Charities is such an employer.

[GKHoff]

Render unto Caesar....

[pts]

I must say that I have never heard of a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used for constitutional interpretation. Sure, government action must be "reasonable" or have a "compelling state interest", but beyond a reasonable doubt? Given that there are more than one dissenter to the majority opinion, isn't this like a jury saying, "Well sure we deadlocked 7 to 5 on guilty, but the majority found it was beyond a reasonable doubt so the defendant is guilty".

[Brett Bellmore]

Worse than that: Here it's the defendant who needs to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt; If there's any doubt to speak of, the state wins.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency is significant because a lot of New England states (e.g. MA, ME) have adopted the California standards.

As it stands, gasoline will be banned in Massachusetts in 2035. It won't be in Maine and I am not quite sure what the legislature did, but it won't be.

The thing with Massachusetts is that the mountains, and hence all the good roads, run basically north/south. Hence the Boston suburbs don't extend to the west, e.g. Worcester some 50 miles away, but up I-95 into Southern Maine and up I-93 into Southern New Hampshire.

There are thousands upon thousands of vehicles legally registered in NH & ME who come down to Massachusetts five days a week and the real question (amongst many) will be the right of travel and the right to operate in Massachusetts a vehicle which can not be registered in Massachusetts.

California is big enough not to have to address this issue -- people aren't commuting from Nevada to jobs in LA. They are from Nashua (NH) to jobs in Boston.

[JJJSSS]

Just to be clear here- gasoline will not be banned in Massachusetts in 2035; a lot of headlines have said that, but they grossly misstate the law. The law, as with California, prohibits the sale of new gasoline powered cars. Cars already owned can still be owned and driven, cars can still be registered (eg for those moving into the state bringing a car with them), and used gas powered cars can still be sold. Even if this law continues, folks coming from NH and ME might find it a little harder to find gas stations if/when the demand for gas drops, but they're going to be perfectly fine visiting or even regularly commuting to MA with brand new gas powered cars.

[F.D. Wolf]

May we presume this "California waiver" will not last much longer, given the incoming administration? And if that waiver is no longer in effect, would that not moot the case?

[Mr. Bumble]

Wouldn't "mooting" it just kick the can down the road until a new administration changed it back? Shouldn't the idea that California is special have a stake driven through its heart?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If I am not mistaken, Texas now has worse air than California.

[ReaderY]

Charity and hospital work has been a traditional religious activity for millenia.

I understand that there could be borderline cases where one could argue about whether or not something is really a religious activity, or whether an entity is merely claiming to be religious to take advantage of laws favorable to religions without actually being so. But it seems to me that the history of the world’s major religions has to be relevant to the analysis. Wisconsin can’t simply establish, by fiat, its own definition of what a religion can and can’t be.

If we take history into account, I think it’s a slam dunk. This kind of charity work has been understood to be part of what many major world religions do and have historically done for many centuries. The Catholic Church in particular has been doing it since long before there has been a United States.

If we were dealing with a sham charity, a de facto for-profit organization pretending to be a charity, perhaps Wisconsin might have a case. But there doesn’t seem to be any allegation of that. All Wisconsin is saying that what the church is doing could be done by secular people purely commercially. But that’s true of a lot of things. One might as well treat marriage and parental relationships as commercial on grounds that sex could just as easily be supplied by prostitutes, and child-rearing by paid nannies, teachers, and boarding schools.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My understanding is that Catholic Charities is making big bucks as a govt contractor for Illegal Aliens.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The historical record of air pollution in California cities showed without doubt that California climate and city locations combine to deliver a higher-than-typical propensity for damaging air pollution. Those tendencies led the nation when California was exempted. Subsequent experience has shown other areas similarly vulnerable.

For instance, urban areas across the Intermountain West remain signal examples. Higher elevations and frequent intervals of windlessness in those locations deliver air pollution to rival California conditions at their previous worst.

On what rational basis can anyone argue that California attempts to further improve urban air quality—which continues far short of pristine—justify overturning that exemption?

More generally, I doubt many folks who live in American cities today have any notion how great an improvement in health and quality of life they would get if now-typical urban air pollution could be sharply reduced.

I will never forget the short interval after 911, when all air traffic was grounded. In the Boston area, a few days ensued without aviation-generated air pollution, and without airport-related vehicle traffic.

I then lived in a community with a distant view of Boston, across the harbor. When air pollution generated by Logan Airport suddenly went away, for a glorious few days—never repeated afterward—details of the Boston skyline were so much better visible that perception suggested the intervening distance had miraculously diminished.

Even where I lived, the still-light-polluted night sky suddenly began to show the milky way. Apparently, there was less air pollution above to reflect the light back. It suddenly occurred to me that it was not so long ago that the staggering spectacle of the natural night sky was a routine phenomenon in cities across the world.

That gigantic and shocking erasure of once-universal human experience crept up so gradually that the change passed all but unnoticed. But it cannot have failed to affect our cultures, making them less alert to how pervasively our industrialism damages the natural world. Ours is a Supreme Court which seems composed without exception of justices whose personal experiences exemplify that perceptual damage.

If the Supreme Court decides to turn back the clock on air pollution control, it will act as an enemy of the American population nationwide.