Supreme Court: Catholic Preschool LGBTQ Exclusion Likely Allowed in State Program

• St. Mary Catholic Parish in Colorado was excluded from a state universal preschool program due to its policy of admitting only families supporting Catholic teachings on sex and marriage.
• The parish sued after being denied a religious exemption from Colorado's equal opportunity mandate, but lower courts dismissed the case.
• During oral arguments, the Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled a likely reversal, aligning the case with precedents that expand religious institutions' access to public funds.
• Conservative justices questioned Colorado's nondiscrimination requirements, while liberal justices warned against legitimizing discrimination against LGBTQ families.
• A ruling for St. Mary could significantly broaden religious exemptions from state nondiscrimination laws in publicly funded programs.

A decision favoring the parish would likely strengthen arguments for religious exemptions from state mandates in publicly funded programs, potentially expanding the scope of institutions that can receive taxpayer dollars while maintaining exclusionary policies.

St. Mary Catholic Parish in Colorado is seeking the Supreme Court's intervention in a dispute over its exclusion from the state's universal preschool program. The parish maintains a policy of admitting only families who support the Catholic Church's teachings on sex and marriage, which led to its denial of participation in the state-funded initiative.

In 2023, St. Mary initiated a lawsuit after its request for a religious exemption from Colorado’s equal opportunity mandate was rejected. Lower courts subsequently dismissed the suit, concluding that Colorado's program did not explicitly discriminate based on religion. However, during recent oral arguments, the Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled a likely reversal of these lower court decisions, appearing poised to create a pathway for religious institutions like the Catholic preschool to access taxpayer funding without fully adhering to state nondiscrimination requirements.

This case is being considered against a backdrop of significant First Amendment jurisprudence from the Roberts court, which has progressively expanded the rights of religious institutions to access public funds. The 2017 *Trinity Lutheran v. Comer* decision established that churches could not be excluded from secular aid programs. This was followed by *Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue* in 2020, which ruled that states could not deny government aid to schools operated by churches.

These rulings culminated in the landmark 2022 *Carson v. Makin* decision, which mandated that state-funded school choice programs must include religious educational institutions. Chief Justice John Roberts drew a direct parallel, stating that the effect of Colorado's law on St. Mary's case was identical to the situation in *Carson*, effectively preventing schools from receiving funds due to their religious beliefs. Justice Amy Coney Barrett further questioned why Colorado had not anticipated this issue, citing the high court's consistent rulings against the state's LGBTQ protections in previous cases involving businesses like cakemakers and website designers, and even conversion therapy.

The conservative justices largely dismissed Colorado's rationale for conditioning universal preschool funding on an equal opportunity mandate, expressing concern that nondiscrimination laws could be used to subtly disadvantage religious beliefs. Justice Samuel Alito articulated this view, suggesting that if a state imposes a condition that specific religions cannot accept, the primary question becomes whether this was done with discriminatory intent against those religions. Justice Neil Gorsuch further implied that states might deliberately enact such laws to circumvent the court's established protections for religious freedom.

In stark contrast, the Court's three Democratic appointees viewed the case as an attempt to legitimize discrimination against LGBTQ families. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the position essentially allows for the exclusion of individuals based on "exposure," specifically mentioning children of same-sex marriages or those with transgender feelings. She and other liberal justices contended that there is no principled distinction between using religious beliefs to exclude LGBTQ families and using them to justify racial discrimination.

The potential ruling in favor of St. Mary Catholic Parish could significantly impact the interplay between First Amendment religious freedom and state nondiscrimination laws, particularly regarding LGBTQ individuals. A decision favoring the parish would likely strengthen arguments for religious exemptions from state mandates in publicly funded programs, potentially expanding the scope of institutions that can receive taxpayer dollars while maintaining exclusionary policies.

This case represents Colorado's fourth potential loss in a series of Supreme Court disputes concerning LGBTQ rights and religious beliefs, underscoring a broader trend. The outcome will clarify the extent to which religious schools can participate in state-funded initiatives like universal preschool programs while adhering to their religious practices, even if those practices conflict with state-mandated equal opportunity provisions. The Supreme Court's decision will have far-reaching consequences for how states structure their public funding programs and how religious institutions navigate nondiscrimination requirements.

Lawyers advising religious institutions should monitor this case closely, as a ruling in favor of St. Mary Catholic Parish will likely strengthen arguments for religious exemptions from state nondiscrimination mandates in publicly funded programs, particularly concerning LGBTQ individuals. Conversely, legal counsel for state agencies or advocacy groups should prepare for increased challenges to nondiscrimination clauses in public funding schemes and consider strategies to protect vulnerable populations from potential discrimination under expanded religious freedom interpretations.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News