On November 3, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a legal challenge initiated by Catholic preschools in Colorado. The preschools claim their exclusion from the state’s universal preschool program constitutes religious discrimination, contravening the First Amendment. Colorado mandates compliance with nondiscrimination policies that require preschools to admit all children, including those from LGBTQ families, to participate in the program.
The Catholic preschools argue that they are not opposed to Colorado allowing over 1,000 other preschools to selectively serve certain communities. They argue for an accommodation that aligns with those granted to other institutions, enabling them to serve their communities effectively. The preschools’ position is further elaborated in their official filings.
According to Colorado, Catholic preschools are welcome to join the program but must adhere to the same equal-opportunity rules as other publicly funded preschools across both secular and religious lines. These requirements are detailed in a brief submitted to the Court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in favor of the state, emphasizing that Colorado has not excluded religious schools from the program. Instead, it actively welcomes and solicits their participation. The restrictions embedded in the nondiscrimination agreement, the court noted, are universally applicable and not specifically targeted at religious institutions.
The case is prominently anticipated for review of the Supreme Court’s scope in its 2022 decision on Carson v. Makin. The Catholic preschools argue under this precedent that Colorado’s actions are a straightforward case of religious exclusion. Colorado argues that the precedent merely confirmed the principle that government laws should not specifically target religion.
This ongoing debate is bound to test the boundaries of religious freedom, nondiscrimination policies, and the intricate balancing act between the two. For further details on the case escalation and the arguments, you can read more on SCOTUSblog.