The Supreme Court appeared ready to rule in favor of religious schools seeking state funding without being required to comply with anti-discrimination laws, based on arguments heard Tuesday in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy. The case centers on whether Colorado can mandate that schools receiving state funds treat LGBTQ families and students the same as all others.
The case originated from a Colorado program that offers taxpayer-funded preschool to all children in the state, allowing families to choose participating private religious schools. However, Colorado state law prohibits any school receiving these funds from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The plaintiffs, including Catholic-identified schools, wish to exclude children of same-sex couples while still receiving state funding.
Throughout recent years, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of religious conservatives in cases involving conflicts with LGBTQ rights. While some justices acknowledged the legal doctrines in these cases can be inconsistent, the pattern of outcomes has remained steady.
During Tuesday's arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts initially posed questions that suggested a potential alignment with Colorado's position, noting that the plaintiffs' request extended beyond previous Court precedents like Carson v. Makin (2022). Colorado is willing to fund religious schools but requires them to adhere to the same non-discrimination rules as other schools in the program.
However, the majority of the justices, with the exception of Roberts, appeared unreceptive to Colorado's stance. Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised questions that might lead to a narrower loss for Colorado than some of her conservative colleagues favor, distinguishing between outright exclusion and imposing conditions on LGBTQ families.
Conversely, the Court's liberal justices expressed concerns about the implications of such a ruling. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether allowing discrimination based on sexual orientation could extend to other forms of discrimination, such as race. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised a hypothetical about a school that teaches only boys, asking if it could claim exemption from laws requiring equal education for all students. Justice Elena Kagan explored whether public schools would be subject to demands from parents seeking accommodations based on anti-LGBTQ beliefs.
The dominant view among the conservative justices seemed to be that any law imposing obligations on religious conservatives should be subjected to "strict scrutiny," the most rigorous level of legal review, which often results in such laws failing. This approach could grant religious schools broad exemptions from various laws, with the potential exception of bans on race discrimination.
Ultimately, regardless of the specific legal path the Court takes, the outcome is likely to favor the religious schools, allowing them to either exclude LGBTQ families entirely or impose conditions that make participation difficult, thereby prioritizing religious objections over LGBTQ anti-discrimination principles.