Supreme Court to Hear Case on Taxpayer Funding for Anti-LGBTQ Schools

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a case that could compel taxpayers to fund religious schools that discriminate against LGBTQ individuals. The case, scheduled for November 3, directly addresses whether religious schools participating in state-funded programs can be exempt from anti-discrimination laws based on religious freedom.

At the heart of the matter is a Colorado law that provides public funding for preschool education. While families can choose from a variety of private and public schools, including religious ones, the state also mandates that participating schools must not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The specific question before the Court is whether Colorado taxpayers must subsidize religious schools that refuse to serve gay or transgender students.

This case follows a trend of Supreme Court decisions that have increasingly favored religious conservatives, often by carving out exemptions from laws that apply to the general public. In Carson v. Makin (2022), the Court ruled that states offering private school tuition vouchers must include religious schools, abandoning a previous stance that allowed states discretion in funding religious education.

The plaintiffs in St. Mary are asking the Court to consolidate its rulings on religious exemptions and government subsidies for religious institutions. For years, the Court has grappled with the Free Exercise Clause, often siding with religious objectors when their beliefs conflict with laws protecting LGBTQ individuals. However, the legal framework governing these exemptions, particularly after the Employment Division v. Smith (1990) decision, has been described as incoherent.

Previous cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) and Fulton v. Philadelphia (2021) saw the Court resolve disputes based on specific factual circumstances rather than establishing broad legal principles. The St. Mary plaintiffs have identified numerous categories of cases where Smith has not been consistently applied, and some justices, like Amy Coney Barrett, have expressed uncertainty about what legal doctrine should replace Smith if it were overturned.

The Court's decisions in recent years have also leaned towards requiring government funding for religious institutions. This trend, exemplified by Carson v. Makin, suggests a willingness to interpret the Establishment Clause in a way that favors the promotion of religion. The St. Mary case presents an opportunity for the Court to potentially require states to fund religious schools that discriminate, even when those schools are otherwise beneficiaries of public programs.

The Court's decision to hear St. Mary without explicitly agreeing to revisit Smith indicates that a majority may not yet be formed to establish a new precedent on religious exemptions. This suggests that the Court might again issue a decision based on the specific facts of the case, rather than providing a clear legal doctrine for future religious liberty cases. Nevertheless, a ruling that taxpayers must fund schools engaging in anti-LGBTQ discrimination would have significant implications for civil rights protections.