On November 3, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a case that may reshape the boundaries of the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause. This case represents a potential turning point in the court’s interpretation of these constitutional protections, particularly as they apply to religious institutions and their entitlements to public funding.
The constitutional pendulum has swung dramatically in recent years. Judicial interpretations have moved away from the conception of a rigid division between church and state, as epitomized by Thomas Jefferson’s metaphor of a “wall” between church and state. Instead, the majority of the current justices have loosened these constraints, underscoring that legal precedents should align with historical understandings of the framers of the Constitution, as stated in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.
Intriguingly, this liberal shift in the judiciary’s composition has also aligned with a more generous interpretation of the free exercise clause, heightened by cases such as Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In these cases, the court has expanded religious freedoms, sometimes placing them above anti-discrimination laws.
The specifics of St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy involve Colorado’s universal preschool program, which requires preschools, including religious ones, to provide equal enrollment opportunities regardless of religious affiliation, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Two Catholic schools and the Archdiocese of Denver contest this requirement, arguing that it breaches their religious beliefs by preventing them from using these criteria during admissions.
The 10th Circuit Court upheld the Colorado law, citing Employment Division v. Smith as a precedent. It ruled that Colorado’s law applies neutrally and did not specifically target religious entities, thereby not violating the religious schools’ rights.
In accepting the case, the Supreme Court will address whether Carson v. Makin diminishes Smith’s authority only in cases of explicit exclusion of religious institutions by the government. The court’s ruling could redefine what constitutes a “compelling interest” for the state when enforcing anti-discrimination laws against religious free exercise claims.
Legal experts are keeping a close watch on how the court might further delineate “religion” and “religious belief,” which could fundamentally alter the legal landscape for religious liberties in the United States. While Colorado defends its law as religion-neutral by stating that it does not exclude religious schools from public funding, the larger question remains: can preventing discrimination outweigh potential religious freedoms to discriminate based on belief?
For those invested in church-state separation or deeply embedded in the legal sector, the outcome of St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy could signify a pivotal reimagining of the balance between protecting civil rights and safeguarding religious freedoms. As the justices deliberate, this case reflects their commitment to evolving constitutional understandings aligned with ideological shifts over time.
Readers can find further details on SCOTUSblog.