In a landmark ruling that defends religious liberty and reinforces constitutional protections for faith-based groups, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with a Catholic charity in Wisconsin, striking down a state decision that denied them tax exemptions due to their inclusive outreach practices.

The decision represents a sharp rebuke of left-wing efforts to punish religious organizations for operating according to their beliefs — even when they serve the broader public.

Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor affirmed that the state of Wisconsin violated the First Amendment by applying theological litmus tests to determine eligibility for unemployment tax credits. The justices ruled that the state engaged in “unnecessary entanglement” with religion by attempting to second-guess the spiritual mission of Catholic Charities based on who they served or hired.

“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,” Sotomayor wrote.

Because Wisconsin failed to meet that constitutional standard, the high court reversed the state supreme court’s judgment and sent the case back down for reconsideration.

At the heart of the case was the state’s claim that Catholic Charities — which provides critical services regardless of religion — wasn’t “religious enough” to qualify for exemptions. That kind of bureaucratic meddling, the Court ruled, violates the core protections of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses.

The ruling is the latest in a series of major wins for religious freedom under the renewed Trump presidency and reflects the restoration of constitutional originalism in the judiciary.

In another sweeping legal win for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court also handed down a crucial decision allowing President Donald Trump’s executive order to terminate parole programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants, reversing a lower court’s attempt to block the administration’s immigration crackdown.

The unsigned order from the Court stayed a lower court ruling that had temporarily protected over 532,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian, and Nicaraguan migrants who received “parole” status under Joe Biden’s lenient immigration policies.

Only Justices Sotomayor and Jackson dissented, showing once again the ideological divide between activist judges and constitutionalists who believe immigration laws should be enforced — not reinterpreted.

Parole is a temporary authorization allowing foreign nationals to enter the U.S. under “humanitarian” pretexts, which Biden abused to circumvent immigration law and flood the country with illegal border-crossers. President Trump ended that practice immediately after taking office in January, directing DHS to halt the program and initiate expedited removals.

The lawsuit, filed by a group of paroled migrants and their American sponsors, aimed to stop the deportations by arguing that the program couldn’t be repealed in bulk. Judge Indira Talwani sided with the plaintiffs in April, but Trump’s DOJ appealed to the Supreme Court, warning that the lower court ruling threatened national security and defied the will of the voters.

“Critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry” were being overturned, the administration told the Court, effectively “undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election.”

Now, with the Court siding with Trump, those parolees face imminent removal, and the administration’s push to secure the southern border and restore order to immigration proceeds at full speed.

The Supreme Court had already ruled in May that President Trump could end Biden’s “Temporary Protected Status” program for Venezuelans, eliminating deportation shields for another 350,000 illegal immigrants.

These back-to-back victories for President Trump mark a decisive shift back to law, order, and constitutional governance, affirming that the days of open borders and anti-religious bureaucracy are over.