The U.S. Supreme Court has added two significant cases to its docket, both of which carry implications for state authority and constitutional rights. On Friday, the Court agreed to review a decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that denied Catholic Charities an exemption from the state’s unemployment tax. The organization argues that it, along with four affiliated agencies, qualifies for the exemption due to being operated “primarily for religious purposes.” The rejection, rooted in the assessment that their activities were “primarily charitable and secular,” raises concerns over the potential violation of the First Amendment. The argument from Catholic Charities hinges on the belief that such state-level decisions could inappropriately involve governments in religious determinations, which they claim detracts from resources otherwise used to aid the needy. The state, on the other hand, insists that denying religious tax exemptions does not constitute undue interference in religious affairs. More details on this matter can be found in an analysis by SCOTUSblog.
The second case involves a challenge to California’s climate change mandate. The Supreme Court’s decision to review follows an appeal by fuel producers regarding their standing to contest California’s climate-related standards under the Clean Air Act. The crux of the case is California’s waiver—initially granted, then partially rescinded during the Trump administration, and finally reinstated in 2022—that allows it to set its own vehicle emissions standards, including a mandate for all passenger vehicles to be zero-emission by 2035. The fuel producers seek to challenge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision, which held that they lacked standing. However, the Court has declined to address the legality of the waiver per se. This ongoing legal debate highlights the tension between federal and state regulatory powers in environmental governance. For the full details, see the Supreme Court’s order.
Both cases will be argued in the spring, with decisions anticipated by early summer. These judgments are poised to impact the interplay between state regulations and religious freedoms while also shaping the future legal landscape of climate policy in the United States. These developments were first covered by Amy Howe at Howe on the Court.