St. Mary Catholic Parish v. RoyArgument November 3 Through the state’s universal pre-K program, four-year-olds in Colorado can attend free preschool at public, private, or religious schools. To receive funding, participating schools must promise not to discriminate in enrollment on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other factors. In this lawsuit, Catholic preschools are arguing that they have a constitutional right, under the Free Exercise Clause, to receive pre-K funding while turning away LGBTQ children and families. This argument was rejected by the Tenth Circuit and is now before the Supreme Court. Under the foundational Free Exercise Clause case Employment Division v. Smith, religious actors must generally comply with laws and policies that are “neutral” and “generally applicable,” even if they conflict with their faith. The state of Colorado is arguing that its pre-K nondiscrimination provision is a neutral and generally applicable rule intended to protect all families—and therefore that the Catholic schools must comply if they want state funding. The Catholic preschools disagree; they’re claiming that the nondiscrimination rule is not neutral and generally applicable, as certain pre-K programs are allowed to prioritize services for children who have disabilities or come from low-income families. According to the Catholic schools, the fact that Colorado permits special preK programs for children with disabilities—but does not allow them to discriminate against LGBTQ children—amounts to unconstitutional religious discrimination. This summer, Union Theological Seminary signed on to an amicus brief highlighting the case’s potential impact on children. It argues that a ruling for the religious schools “would grant a taxpayer-funded license to discriminate against some of the youngest and most vulnerable members of society.” LRRP will be listening to oral argument on November 3 and providing updates on the case. Also Worth WatchingNew England Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. DHS (D. Mass.): In February, a federal court barred DHS from most warrantless enforcement at the plaintiff congregations. In August, the 11 faith groups that brought the suit asked the court to hold DHS in contempt after records showed an undercover agent had surveilled University Baptist Church in Minneapolis, which is covered by the order. The judge has ordered DHS to explain itself. The government’s response: it didn’t violate the injunction because the surveillance was intended to enforce criminal rather than immigration laws. The judge has yet to issue a ruling on the contempt motion. Track this and other cases in our Religion & Immigration Litigation Tracker. Religious charter schools, round two: In 2025, after a recusal by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court split 4 to 4 in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond—a case involving the proposed creation of a religious public charter school. The split left the constitutional question unresolved, and last month, a federal district court opinion in Oklahoma paved the way for the nation’s first religious charter school. This issue could return to the Supreme Court. Texas legislators’ anti-Muslim agenda: Islamophobic policy proposals and rhetoric are on the rise nationwide—but especially in Texas. At the recent Texas Faith Fest conference, state lawmakers presented a slew of anti-Muslim bills, including banning halal food in prisons and schools. They also questioned whether Islam should count as a religion at all. LRRP Director Liz Reiner Platt told the Houston Chronicle that such proposals would conflict with federal law and the Constitution. On a bill to bar public broadcasts of the Muslim call to prayer, she explained: “There’s a distinction between a neutral noise ordinance and a law that is intentionally crafted to suppress a particular religious exercise or religious community.”
|
