TL;DR
Get gifts for the two of you delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Supreme Court justices appeared inclined to support two Catholic preschools challenging Colorado’s requirement that publicly funded pre-K programs admit children from LGBTQ families. The case tests how religious-freedom protections apply to providers receiving public funds; the court has not issued a ruling.
The Supreme Court’s conservative justices appeared skeptical Tuesday of Colorado’s pre-K nondiscrimination requirement, as two Catholic preschools argued they should be allowed to turn away children from LGBTQ families while participating in a state-funded program. The court’s questions suggested it may side with the schools in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, but no ruling has been issued.
For roughly two hours, the justices examined whether Colorado can require participating preschools to admit children regardless of whether a parent or other family member identifies as LGBTQ. The challenged rule applies to programs receiving public support. The plaintiffs include St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton and a second Catholic preschool; they say the admissions requirement conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Helen Norton, arguing for Colorado, said the state wants to make preschool broadly available to religious families. She told the court providers remain free to teach their religious beliefs about sex, gender and marriage, provided they follow the state’s nondiscrimination rule. Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested the state could exempt religious schools and let LGBTQ families choose among the other roughly 2,000 programs available, asking why the court could not “seek the win-win.”
Nicholas Reaves, representing the schools and parents, argued that Colorado already permits some admissions preferences, including for low-income children and children with disabilities. He said the state’s rule makes a religious accommodation a “hard limit.” Justice Elena Kagan raised the opposite concern: that ruling for the schools could make it easier for religious organizations to challenge generally applicable laws by claiming a substantial burden on their beliefs.
Public Funds and Religious Admissions
The case could shape the conditions states may place on publicly funded services operated by religious organizations. A ruling for the schools could require Colorado to make an exception to its admissions rule, or could lead the court to set broader limits on how governments apply nondiscrimination requirements to religious providers.
That outcome could affect families seeking affordable preschool as well as the schools and governments administering public programs. Brian Dittmeier of the National Women’s Law Center warned that a ruling allowing exclusions could carry consequences for other family structures, including households led by single parents, divorced parents or interfaith couples. Those are concerns raised by an advocate, not findings by the court.
Popular right now
Apple AirPods Max 2 Wireless Over-Ear Headphones – Midnight
Ninja Crispi Glass Air Fryer (Stone) – 4‑in‑1
LG 85-Inch QNED84B Mini LED 4K Smart TV (2026)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Court’s Religious-Freedom Tests
Colorado has relied on Employment Division v. Smith, a 1990 decision holding that religious belief does not generally excuse a person from following a law that applies to everyone. The justices also discussed Carson v. Makin, in which the court ruled that states could not exclude religious schools from a tuition-benefit program because they were religious.
Another possible guide is Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In 2021, the court unanimously ruled that a Catholic social-service agency could not be denied a contract for refusing to certify same-sex couples as foster parents, where the city’s policy allowed officials to grant exceptions. The arguments in Colorado also sit within a series of First Amendment disputes involving the state, including cases about a baker’s refusal to serve a same-sex couple and a law restricting conversion therapy for transgender minors.
“Providers remain free to teach their religious beliefs … about sex or gender or marriage.”
— Helen Norton, arguing for Colorado
The Scope of a Possible Ruling
The justices’ questions offer clues about their concerns, but oral arguments do not determine the outcome. The court has not said whether it will rule for Colorado or the schools, or whether any decision would be narrow—focused on the particular program and available exceptions—or establish a broader rule for religious providers receiving public funds.
It also remains unclear how a ruling would affect the operation of Colorado’s pre-K program or the choices available to LGBTQ families. The source report describes the court as appearing skeptical of the state’s position; that is an assessment of the arguments, not a final judicial finding.
A Decision After Oral Arguments
The Supreme Court will issue a written decision after considering the case. Until then, Colorado’s rule remains the subject of the challenge, and the schools’ request for a religious exemption has not been resolved. The timing and precise scope of the eventual ruling are not specified in the source report.
Readers should watch whether the court relies on the reasoning in Fulton, Carson or Smith, and whether its opinion addresses only these preschools or sets guidance for other publicly funded programs. The final decision, rather than Tuesday’s exchanges, will determine the legal effect.
Key Questions
What is the Supreme Court case about?
St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy concerns whether two Catholic preschools receiving state support must follow Colorado’s rule requiring participating programs to admit children from LGBTQ families, despite the schools’ religious objections.
Has the Supreme Court ruled?
No. The justices heard oral arguments Tuesday, and a decision is pending. Their questions suggested skepticism toward Colorado’s position, but arguments alone do not establish the outcome.
What did Colorado argue?
Colorado’s attorney said providers can teach their religious beliefs about sex, gender and marriage, but must comply with the nondiscrimination requirement to participate in the state-funded program.
What could a ruling change?
A decision for the schools could require an exemption from Colorado’s admissions rule or clarify how religious-freedom protections apply to publicly funded programs. The reach of any ruling is not yet known.
Source: the74million.org
