As the Supreme Court ends its 2024-2025 term, the justices’ rulings offered major wins for religious liberty activists in cases involving the religious rights of both organizations and individuals.
Religious liberty has repeatedly been a major issue before the high court in recent terms, with three major cases before the Supreme Court this term alone that dealt with conflicts over faith and government authority. Religious liberty advocates notched two major victories and one setback this term, which wound down Friday with a flurry of high-profile decisions from the justices.
High-profile win with Wisconsin case
The Supreme Court offered religious liberty advocates a significant win with its unanimous decision in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission earlier this month.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, ruled that the Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior was entitled to a religious exemption under Wisconsin law for paying into the state’s unemployment insurance program. The justices rejected the state’s argument that the organization’s services were “secular” and therefore did not qualify for the exemption.
Religious liberty advocates hailed the victory, with Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, saying the high court had “resoundingly reaffirmed a fundamental truth of our constitutional order: the First Amendment protects all religious beliefs, not just those the government favors.”
The victory for religious liberty advocates would not be limited to the Wisconsin case. In an order list released by the Supreme Court weeks later, the justices instructed a New York appeals court to reconsider its decision in a case where a group of nuns challenged a state mandate to cover employees’ abortion costs. The lower court had sided with the state, but the Supreme Court told that court to reconsider that in light of its decision in Catholic Charities Bureau.
Oklahoma religious charter school is a mixed loss
While advocates won in Catholic Charities Bureau, the high court ended in a rare 4-4 tie in a separate case involving whether Oklahoma could establish a taxpayer-funded religious charter school.
Because of the split decision, caused partially by Justice Amy Coney Barrett recusing herself for an undisclosed reason, the lower court’s ruling blocking the state from establishing the religious charter school stood. The high court offered no explanation in its decision due to the deadlock.
Because the Supreme Court did not create a precedent and only allowed the lower court ruling to remain in place, advocates are hopeful they can bring the issue back before the justices via a different vehicle.
Alliance Defending Freedom Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell said in the aftermath of the decision that while it was “disappointing for educational freedom,” the split allows “the court to revisit this issue in the future.”
Mahmoud v. Taylor marks another big victory
The last major religious liberty case the justices decided was Mahmoud v. Taylor, which was decided on the final opinion day of the term.
The case stemmed from parents suing Montgomery County, Maryland, public schools over the school district’s decision that required children to participate in gender ideology instruction without their parents having the choice to opt them out of the lessons.
The group of parents alleged that the school district had infringed on their religious liberty by not allowing them to opt their children out of studying LGBT books, or even to receive advance notice about when the gender ideology lessons would occur. The school board argued that opening the door for sweeping opt-outs for curriculum parents disagree with would “conscript courts into the role of playing school board.”
The high court sided 6-3 with Maryland parents over the school board, agreeing that not allowing opt-outs on LGBT books in schools infringed on the parents’ religious freedom rights. While the case plays out in a lower court, the justices ordered that the school board notify parents when the controversial lessons are scheduled to occur and to allow opt-outs when the types of books at the center of the case are part of classroom instruction.
The case capped off a successful term for religious freedom advocates at the Supreme Court.
Stephanie Barclay, professor from the Georgetown Center for the Constitution at Georgetown University Law Center, said during a Federalist Society panel Friday that the case was a “victory for pluralism” and allowed religious liberty to coexist with other freedoms.
“It demonstrates that religious liberty and inclusive education can coexist through reasonable accommodations that respect sincere convictions of diverse families,” Barclay said.
“This commonsense ruling exemplifies, I think, the best of American constitutional tradition, finding workable solutions that allow people of different faiths and backgrounds to participate fully in public institutions without forcing them to choose between their deepest beliefs and civic engagement,” Barclay added.
TOP CASES THE SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE AT THE END OF THIS TERM
Religious liberty in the next term
As the high court ends its current term, it has taken up another religious liberty case for the next one. The justices will hear a case on whether government officials can be held liable for violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The case stems from a former Louisiana inmate who claims his religious rights were violated when prison staff shaved his head despite his religious beliefs.
One of the religious liberty cases the justices decided not to take involved a group of Native American activists and supporters looking to block a copper mining company from destroying an Apache religious site. The justices rejected the petition 6-2 last month, with Justice Neil Gorsuch calling it a “grave mistake” that the Supreme Court had passed on the religious liberty case.