The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Tuesday indicated support for Catholic preschools challenging Colorado's taxpayer-funded program, which they claim unconstitutionally excludes them due to their religious tenets.
The case centers on whether private educational institutions that deny admission to children of LGBTQ+ parents violate state anti-discrimination laws, thereby disqualifying them from receiving public benefits. This marks the latest high-profile religious rights appeal to reach the court, with several originating from Colorado.
During a two-hour oral argument, justices debated the competing interests of religious liberty and a state's aim to ensure equal opportunity. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the plaintiffs' lawyer about seeking an official subsidy despite a stated intent to exclude certain children. "You want an official statement by the State that I will subsidize you with public money even though – because I have a right to reject children," she said.
Conversely, Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested the state's intentions, while possibly well-meaning, could lead to an unnecessary clash. He proposed that there are ample opportunities for both religious believers and LGBTQ+ parents to find suitable schools without creating conflict. "It seems like this is a would-be solution in search of a problem that is unnecessary to create this clash," he stated.
Colorado's Universal Preschool Program, established by a 2020 ballot measure, distributes public funds to participating schools. However, it requires that schools "provide eligible children an equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool services regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing, income level, or disability."
Two Catholic parishes sued, asserting that this policy targets their sincerely held beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. The archdiocese in Colorado operates 34 preschools with a policy to admit only students from families who uphold Catholic ideology on issues including same-sex relationships and gender identity. The plaintiffs argue that being compelled to abandon these beliefs or forgo public funding constitutes religious discrimination, violating the First Amendment.
The state, however, argues that its conditions for receiving public benefits are neutral and universally applied. Officials contend that religious schools are welcome to participate but must adhere to the same nondiscrimination laws applicable to all other participating schools.
The Supreme Court's decision could affect a 36-year-old precedent concerning whether religious practices are exempt from broadly applicable laws. In recent years, the court's conservative majority has shown a trend toward favoring religious institutions asserting "free exercise" claims, supporting individuals in previous cases involving a baker, a counselor, and a website developer challenging state anti-discrimination policies.
Justices appeared divided along ideological lines during the arguments. Conservative justices focused on the plaintiffs' "free exercise" claims, while liberal justices, like Elena Kagan, referenced prior rulings that prohibit treating religious institutions differently, questioning if the current case demands preferential treatment.
Chief Justice John Roberts expressed skepticism about applying recent rulings favoring religious schools to this case, noting that in prior instances, the law explicitly discriminated against religious schools on its face, unlike the situation in Colorado, where the law is applied more broadly.
Plaintiffs, including St. Mary Catholic School, state that the program's requirements have led to decreased enrollment and the closure of two schools. Erika Nagle, a parent whose children were denied access to the program, described the situation as the state "actively going out of their way to exclude a huge chunk of people because of our religious beliefs."
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, representing the plaintiffs, highlighted the severe consequences of the state's policies. The state counters that numerous religious entities, including dozens of Christian schools, a Muslim school, and Jewish schools, continue to participate in the program while adhering to nondiscrimination requirements.
The case, St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, is expected to have a ruling by next spring.