Supreme Court Shows Signs That It Might Side With Catholic Schools Over LGBTQ+ Parents in Case

US Supreme Court justices questioned Colorado's preschool funding rules during oral arguments in a religious freedom case brought by Catholic schools and parents. The schools want access to public subsidies while seeking an exemption from anti-discrimination requirements covering children raised by same-sex couples.

The dispute in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy followed Colorado's rejection of a request for a religious exemption from its admissions policy. The plaintiffs sued in 2023. Lower courts have sided with the state, which maintains that religious and secular providers accepting programme funding must comply with the same conditions.

Questions from Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett examined the schools' objections. Their interventions offered indications of their concerns, rather than a ruling on whether Colorado's funding requirements violate religious freedom.

Religious Freedom Claims Test Colorado's Funding Conditions

Colorado's universal pre-K programme began in 2023, allowing religious and secular providers, including public and private schools, to participate. The admissions requirement concerns access without discrimination, including against children from LGBTQ+ families, rather than a guarantee that every applicant receives a place.

The Catholic challengers, including St. Mary parish and affected parents, argue that the condition discriminates against their sincerely held religious beliefs. They seek public funding without having to alter admissions policies that exclude children being raised by same-sex couples.

The church has also described financial pressure on its preschools. In a brief, it reported declining enrolment without state subsidies. Parents who wish to retain their children's places at those schools must cover costs that programme funding would otherwise offset.

Colorado argues that participation is voluntary. Providers that find the conditions burdensome can decline to join, but those accepting subsidies must meet the programme's anti-discrimination requirements.

Justices Examine Competing Religious Freedom Arguments

Kavanaugh questioned why Colorado had not accommodated Catholic schools alongside other participating preschools. He suggested that an arrangement could respect religious rights while preserving families' access to schools suited to their children.

Barrett also questioned the state's position following a discussion of earlier cases involving religious protections. Her questions examined the state's position and the schools' request for an exemption, without establishing how she would vote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson focused on the consequences of the exemption the schools were seeking. Addressing Nicholas Reaves, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and an attorney for the Catholic challengers, she questioned whether they wanted preferential treatment.

Jackson also challenged whether the proposed approach would undermine equal treatment by prioritising religious providers' ability to exclude other families. Her intervention concerned the effect of an exemption on those seeking access to publicly funded preschool education.

Helen Norton, representing Colorado, defended the state's efforts to include religious schools. She disputed suggestions that the admissions condition had indirectly targeted Catholic providers, asserting there was 'zero evidence' of that.

Religious Freedom Precedent Shapes the Legal Dispute

Much of the hearing concerned Employment Division v. Smith, the 1990 decision addressing the First Amendment's protection of religious exercise. Under that precedent, neutral, generally applicable laws ordinarily do not violate that protection merely because they incidentally burden religious practice.

The appeals court relied on Smith in upholding Colorado's position. Conservative critics argue that the decision restricts religious freedom too sharply.

Justice Neil Gorsuch called for overturning the precedent in a 2021 case involving a Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia that refused to work with same-sex prospective foster parents. Kavanaugh and Barrett expressed concerns then about the consequences of overturning Smith and what might replace it.

For Colorado, Norton maintained that the funding conditions applied equally across the programme.

'The only thing Colorado asks is that they comply with the same conditions that every publicly funded preschool must meet, religious and secular alike,' she stated.