US Supreme Court: Examines Colorado Preschool Funding, Religious Exemption

• The US Supreme Court is reviewing Colorado's universal preschool program, which offers free schooling but requires participating institutions to be open to all students.
• Two Catholic preschools, St. Mary Catholic Parish and St. Bernadette Catholic Parish, are challenging the program's inclusivity mandate, seeking a religious exemption to exclude LGBTQ families.
• Lower courts have ruled against the preschools, asserting that the *Carson v. Makin* precedent does not apply to Colorado's generally applicable anti-discrimination rules.
• The state argues that applying *Carson* would force scrutiny of any public benefit condition that incidentally burdens religious conduct and points to *Employment Division v. Smith* as the relevant precedent.
• The case will determine the extent to which religious organizations receiving public funds can claim exemptions from state anti-discrimination policies, impacting the balance between religious freedom and equal access.

This Supreme Court case could significantly alter the scope of religious exemptions for organizations receiving public funds, particularly concerning LGBTQ anti-discrimination policies.

The US Supreme Court is currently examining the parameters of Colorado's universal preschool program, a state initiative designed to provide up to 15 hours of free schooling each week for every four-year-old resident, an offering valued at over $6,000 annually. A core condition for schools participating in this program is adherence to specific quality standards and a commitment to inclusivity, requiring them to be open to all students.

This mandate for universal access has created a legal conflict, as two Catholic preschools, St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton and St. Bernadette Catholic Parish in Lakewood, seek to participate while maintaining policies that exclude LGBTQ families. The case before the Supreme Court centers on whether these faith-based institutions can receive public funds while simultaneously seeking a religious exemption from the state's anti-discrimination requirements, thereby challenging the program's foundational principle of equal opportunity for all children and families.

The Catholic preschools contend that Colorado's inclusivity mandate effectively bars them from the program due to their religious practices, which necessitate that all enrolling families support the Catholic Church’s teachings on sex and marriage. They argue this exclusion imposes what they describe as a substantial new tax on parents who wish for their preschool-aged children to receive an education rooted in the Catholic faith.

Their lawsuit, initiated in 2023 after their request for a religious exemption was denied, has faced setbacks in two lower courts. These courts determined that the precedent set by *Carson v. Makin* applies only when government exclusions are explicitly based on religion, a distinction they found absent in Colorado's generally applicable rules. The Colorado Department of Early Childhood maintains that the preschools are not being excluded but are simply being held to the same neutral, generally applicable standards that apply to all publicly funded preschools, whether public, private, secular, or religious. The department emphasizes that all participating schools must provide eligible children an equal opportunity to enroll and receive services.

Colorado's legal strategy urges the high court to consider the case under the framework of *Employment Division v. Smith*, a 1990 ruling which established that an individual's religious beliefs do not excuse compliance with an otherwise valid law that the government is free to regulate. The state argues that applying *Carson* in this context would inappropriately transform that ruling into a requirement to scrutinize any public benefit condition that might incidentally burden religiously motivated conduct.

The current dispute arises amidst a series of rulings by the Roberts Court that have significantly reshaped First Amendment jurisprudence concerning the free exercise clause, which safeguards the right to practice religious beliefs. Landmark decisions include *Trinity Lutheran v. Comer* in 2017, which held that churches could not be excluded from secular aid programs, and *Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue* in 2020, where justices ruled that states could not deny government aid to schools controlled by churches.

These cases culminated in the Supreme Court’s pivotal 2022 decision in *Carson v. Makin*, which mandated that state-funded school choice programs must encompass education at religious institutions. The Catholic preschools assert that their case aligns precisely with *Carson*'s holding, arguing that the free exercise clause prohibits the denial of available public benefits based on a recipient’s religious exercise. Columbia Law School professor Suzanne Goldberg highlights that this case poses a critical question: whether a state can require schools to adhere to non-discrimination policies when providing them with specialized funding, reflecting a broader trend of litigation that examines if anti-discrimination protections must yield to religious viewpoints.

This Supreme Court case could significantly alter the scope of religious exemptions for organizations receiving public funds, particularly concerning LGBTQ anti-discrimination policies. The Court's decision will provide crucial clarification on the boundaries of the First Amendment's free exercise clause, especially when religious institutions seek public funding while simultaneously adhering to internal policies that conflict with state-mandated anti-discrimination requirements.

The outcome carries substantial implications for both government agencies responsible for administering public benefits and for religious schools nationwide. It will likely influence compliance requirements and potential litigation risks related to the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, ultimately shaping the balance between religious freedom and state interests in ensuring equal opportunity and access for all citizens.

This Supreme Court case could significantly alter the scope of religious exemptions for organizations receiving public funds, particularly concerning LGBTQ anti-discrimination policies. Lawyers advising religious schools or government agencies administering public benefits should monitor the ruling for implications on compliance requirements and potential litigation risks related to the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News