The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to revisit a significant religious liberty precedent in the case of St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, concerning Colorado’s Universal Preschool Program. The program offers publicly funded preschool through a mixed-delivery system that includes both public and private providers, such as religious institutions. The program mandates that participating providers comply with nondiscrimination requirements, including equal opportunity for children regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, and other protected statuses.
Catholic preschools in Denver, along with the Archdiocese of Denver, have challenged this requirement, arguing that it forces them to violate their religious convictions. They seek an exemption allowing them to exclude children of LGBT parents or who contradict the Church’s teachings on gender. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld Colorado’s stance based on the 1990 Supreme Court precedent in Employment Division v. Smith, which held that religious observers must comply with neutral, generally applicable laws that do not target specific religious practices.
Underpinning the current judicial scrutiny is an ongoing debate over the Smith decision, which many legal observers argue needs revisiting. Petitioners are pressing three core questions, including whether secular exemptions in laws should affect their “general applicability” under Smith, and whether the decision should be overruled entirely in light of cases like Carson v. Makin, where conditioning benefits on compliance with neutral laws was scrutinized. Colorado maintains that its requirements impose uniform nondiscrimination obligations on all providers, religious and non-religious alike.
The lingering question is whether the Supreme Court might seize this opportunity to reassess Smith, a move that could have far-reaching implications for religious liberty and nondiscrimination laws nationwide. As of now, the case has garnered significant amicus attention, including from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and several states, underpinning its potential to impact legal precedent profoundly.