November 2026

On Tuesday at the polls, voters decided ballot measures on school prayer, abortion, same-sex marriage, and the rights of transgender students. The same day, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, which will determine whether religious preschools can take state funding while turning away LGBTQ families. In this newsletter, we share our reflections on the election results and what we heard at the Supreme Court.

Liz Reiner Platt, Director of LRRP

Election Results

Readers will no doubt have seen the massive gains Democrats made in state and federal elections nationwide. Several faith leaders won office, and Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan became the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Senate. Also on the ballot Tuesday were many state measures impacting religious freedom, reproductive rights, and LGBTQ equality:

Wins for religious freedom, abortion rights, LGBTQ equality, and public health:

• Vermont enshrines equal rights: Voters approved Proposal 4, adding equal protection to the state constitution, including on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

• Missouri, Virginia, and Nevada protect abortion and LGBTQ rights: Missouri voters rejected the legislature’s attempt to repeal the abortion-rights amendment that passed in 2024, preserving it in the state constitution. The repeal would also have written a ban on gender-transition care for minors into the constitution. Virginia and Nevada voters added abortion rights to their state constitutions, and Virginia repealed the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

• Wisconsin protects public health and safety: Voters rejected an amendment that would have barred state and local governments from closing places of worship during emergencies. The amendment was motivated by opposition to COVID policies that limited gatherings to protect public health.

Losses for religious pluralism, reproductive rights, and trans rights:

• Alabama approves student-led prayer in schools: Voters approved Amendment 3, which requires every school board to mandate a daily Pledge of Allegiance and allow for student-initiated and -led prayer, with an opt-out for students.

• Idaho rejects abortion rights: Idaho voters rejected Prop 1, which would have protected abortion rights, by about 55% to 45%. Idaho’s abortion ban has devastated access to maternal healthcare.

• Trans students targeted in four states: Arizona and Nebraska passed measures targeting trans students’ participation in sports, and Washington is likely to do the same. Arizona’s Prop 318 also prevents trans students from using the bathrooms that match their gender identity. Colorado’s measures restricting transgender athletes and gender-affirming surgery for minors are close to passing.

St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy

Colorado offers free universal pre-K at public, private, and religious schools. To receive state funding, every participating preschool—including religious ones—must agree not to discriminate in enrollment based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and other factors. Yesterday, Catholic preschools argued before the Court that this antidiscrimination requirement violates the Free Exercise Clause.

At Tuesday’s oral argument, the Court’s conservative majority was receptive to the schools’ arguments—and at times seemed to question the merits of antidiscrimination law itself. In one exchange, Justice Kavanaugh called enforcing the antidiscrimination provision “a would-be solution in search of a problem,” and suggested that LGBTQ families were not harmed when “there’s an ability for everyone to go to… a good school that’s a fit for them.” Justice Alito agreed, saying there was “little evidence of a practical problem” of “LGBTQ couples who cannot find other preschools.” Such arguments ignore the fundamental problem that equal protection laws are intended to correct—the indignity of exclusion from the public sphere, and not merely a lack of access to services.

While some conservative justices questioned the need for LGBTQ antidiscrimination protections, others framed the Colorado provision as itself a form of anti-religious discrimination. Chief Justice Roberts told Colorado’s lawyer that the effect of the equal access rule was “pretty much the same” as the Maine law the Court struck down in Carson v. Makin. Unfortunately, the Court seems poised to rule that the Constitution not only allows, but requires states to fund discrimination against the littlest members of our society, if they choose to invest in private preschool at all. Such a ruling would turn the commitment to equal opportunity on its head.

Union Theological Seminary signed onto an amicus brief in the case.

What the Law Already Says About Religious Exemptions

This isn’t the first time the Court has weighed religious objections to antidiscrimination law. In 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023), the Court held that a website designer could refuse to make wedding websites for same-sex couples, because custom web design is protected speech. But the ruling was about expressive work, not a general religious exemption from antidiscrimination law.

As LRRP’s Q&A on Free Speech, Religious Liberty, and Discrimination explains, courts treat two kinds of work differently:

• Custom, expressive work, like designing a wedding website, photographing a ceremony, or writing a speech, where the First Amendment may protect a refusal.

• Ordinary goods and services, like selling products off the shelf, renting an apartment, or serving a meal, where antidiscrimination law applies and free speech is not a recognized basis for an exemption.

In practical terms, a photographer who declines to shoot a same-sex wedding may have a stronger legal argument than a florist selling ready-made bouquets. A restaurant cannot refuse to serve LGBTQ customers on religious grounds, and a landlord cannot refuse to rent to a same-sex couple. Religious freedom does not provide a general license to discriminate in commercial settings.

LRRP has twice joined Muslim Advocates at the Supreme Court, in Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative, to argue that broad exemptions from antidiscrimination law fall hardest on religious minorities, who depend on those laws to take full part in public life. Such exemptions therefore erode the very right they are intended to protect—religious freedom.

Funding Religious Freedom for Everyone

Last month in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Liz argued that funders have ceded religious freedom to the Christian Right. The largest conservative religious liberty legal groups together have at least 180 staff attorneys and $260 million, and there is no comparable investment on the progressive side.

LRRP is one of only a few organizations dedicated to helping progressive and minority faith communities use religious freedom law, and Liz is our only full-time attorney. As she notes in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, requests from faith leaders have grown faster than we can keep up with. If our trackers, reports, and analysis have been useful to you this year, please consider supporting LRRP before the holiday rush.

The Law, Rights and Religion Project at Union Theological Seminary works to advance a vision of religious liberty that protects everyone, not just those with the most political power. If this newsletter was forwarded to you, you can subscribe here.