Religious organizations in Wisconsin and North Dakota secured major legal victories this week as courts upheld their right to follow their faith without government interference, dealing a significant blow to the progressive agenda that seeks to force religious groups to violate their beliefs.
Key Takeaways
- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Catholic Charities in Wisconsin can opt out of the state unemployment compensation program, reinforcing religious liberty protections.
- North Dakota’s federal court blocked government requirements forcing Catholic healthcare providers to fund gender-transition procedures that violate their religious beliefs.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized that the government must maintain “neutrality between religion and religion,” preventing state agencies from discriminating against religious organizations.
- These rulings represent a growing trend of courts protecting religious freedom against government overreach, particularly in areas related to gender ideology.
- President Trump’s administration has supported these religious liberty protections through executive orders that recognize only biological sex.
Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Victory for Catholic Charities
In a significant victory for religious liberty, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Catholic Charities can opt out of Wisconsin’s state unemployment compensation program. The case centered on a Catholic Charities chapter in northern Wisconsin that sought to join a cheaper alternative church system rather than remain in the state program they had participated in for over 50 years. Wisconsin had denied the exemption, claiming the charity’s work was not sufficiently religious because it provided services to all people regardless of faith, employed non-Catholics, and did not actively proselytize.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the Court, delivered a powerful rebuke to Wisconsin’s position, stating: “It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain ‘neutrality between religion and religion.’ 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,” Justice Sotomayor, NPR
The Court’s decision could have far-reaching implications, potentially affecting similar unemployment compensation programs in 46 other states. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, citing the “church authority doctrine” and emphasizing that the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision constituted unconstitutional religious discrimination. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also filed a concurrence, noting that the state court’s ruling violated the neutrality principle enshrined in the Constitution’s Religion Clauses.
North Dakota Ruling Protects Religious Healthcare Providers
In another significant development for religious liberty, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte in North Dakota ruled that federal agencies cannot require healthcare providers to fund gender-transition procedures if doing so violates their religious beliefs. The lawsuit was brought by the Catholic Benefits Association, an order of Catholic nuns, and two Catholic care facilities, challenging the Biden administration’s expansive interpretation of the Affordable Care Act that attempted to force religious organizations to provide coverage for gender transition procedures.
“The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,” wrote Welte. Townhall
Judge Welte specifically barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from mandating that religious employers provide health plans covering “gender-affirming care.” However, he dismissed parts of the lawsuit related to abortion and fertility treatments, citing underdeveloped arguments. The ruling aligns with President Trump’s executive order signed in 2025 that recognizes only male and female biological sex, further reinforcing the protection of religious organizations from being forced to violate their core beliefs.
A Growing Trend of Religious Liberty Protection
These recent court decisions reflect a broader trend of the judiciary upholding religious freedom protections against government overreach. The Supreme Court has increasingly sided with religious plaintiffs in recent years, recognizing the fundamental importance of protecting faith-based organizations from policies that would force them to compromise their religious principles. This trend represents a significant pushback against progressive attempts to subordinate religious liberty to ideological agendas, particularly in areas related to gender and sexuality.
“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. Because Wisconsin has transgressed that principle without the tailoring necessary to survive such scrutiny, the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reversed.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Constitution Center
The Court is also considering another case involving religious objections to books with LGBTQ content in public schools, suggesting that this judicial protection of religious liberty will continue to shape American legal and cultural landscapes. For conservative Americans who value traditional religious principles, these rulings represent crucial victories in preserving the fundamental constitutional right to religious freedom against an increasingly hostile progressive agenda that seeks to undermine those values.
