The United States Supreme Court is set to consider St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy in its private conference this week, presenting an opportunity to address ongoing questions related to religious discrimination and free exercise jurisprudence. The case challenges Colorado’s universal preschool program, which mandates a nondiscrimination requirement as a condition for participation. Catholic entities in the state argue that this requirement is discriminatory, asserting that it compels them to contravene teachings regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.
Since its inception, Colorado’s universal preschool program has sought to provide access to preschool education for all children, financed by a proposition approved by voters in 2020. However, the requirement that participating schools adhere to a nondiscrimination policy, which ensures equal opportunity for enrollment regardless of race, ethnicity, or religious affiliation, remains contentious. The Archdiocese of Denver and other Catholic petitioners have argued that this policy violates their First Amendment rights due to its conflict with Catholic teachings.
The legal landscape for this issue has been shaped by prior Supreme Court rulings on the intersection of public funding and religious organizations, such as Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. These cases reinforced that religious groups cannot be excluded from generally available public benefits simply due to their religious nature.
Despite a federal district court’s denial of an injunction favoring the Catholic challengers in 2024, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision, stating that the nondiscrimination requirement did not uniquely burden religious entities. Nevertheless, the challengers have petitioned the Supreme Court to reconsider this aspect and potentially revise its stance on what constitutes a neutral and generally applicable law, concepts pivotal in the landmark Employment Division v. Smith case.
The federal government has taken a stance by filing an amicus brief supporting the Catholic challengers, emphasizing the importance of resolving divergent judicial interpretations of neutrality in law as defined by Smith. The upcoming discussions in SCOTUS could have lasting implications on how religious freedom and state nondiscrimination policies interact on a national scale.
The case is being closely watched by legal experts and faith-based institutions alike as it provides a platform for the Supreme Court to further delineate the boundary between religious rights and state-imposed nondiscrimination rules. Further information about the case proceedings can be found on SCOTUSblog.