Opinion analysis

When there is a conflict between religious freedom and public policies that protect LGBTQ people, The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday When Philadelphia stopped working with Catholic organizations that refused to certify same-sex couples as potential adoptive parents, Philadelphia violated the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. Thursday’s ruling was a victory over the Catholic Department of Social Services and two foster parents, an organization associated with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, who claimed that Philadelphia refused to refer foster care to CSS because the organization had discriminated against traditional marriages’ religious beliefs. But the decision failed to gain the broad recognition of religious freedom sought by challengers.Although the judges unanimously agreed with CSS and the adoptive parents that the city’s behavior was unconstitutional, the majority of the six judges still retained the Supreme Court’s decision in 1990. Employment Division v. Smith, It believes that as long as government actions are neutral and applicable to everyone, they will not violate the free exercise clause of the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote an opinion for the court. Judges Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Conney Barrett also joined this opinion. Barre wrote a consensual opinion, Kavanaugh fully joined, Breyer joined, except for the first paragraph. Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion agreeing to the judgment—that is, agreeing to the result of the court, if not necessarily its reasoning. His opinion was supported by Judges Clarence Thomas and Neal Gorsuch. Gorsuch wrote his own opinions in the verdict, and Thomas and Alito also joined the verdict.

The case began in 2018, when the Philadelphia City Council passed a resolution condemning “discrimination under the guise of religious freedom” and instructing the city’s Department of Public Services, which is responsible for finding homes for foster children, to change its contracting methods. In the days following the resolution, the city stopped all referrals to CSS.

CSS and two adoptive parents, Sharonell Fulton and Toni Lynn Simms-Busch, went to the Federal Court to seek a court order requesting the city to resume the referral to CSS. They argued that the city’s decision to cut off referrals violated several different parts of the First Amendment: the free exercise clause, which protects religious belief and expression; the establishment clause (among other things) prohibits the government from favoring non-religion over religion; And free speech clauses.The Federal District Court rejected them and ruled that the city’s policy was passed. SmithThe US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit confirmed that there is no indication that the city discriminates against CSS due to its religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court overturned the original verdict. In his opinion to the court, Roberts first pointed out that the city’s behavior has placed a burden on CSS’s religious activities, which is “obvious”, requiring it to “reduce its mission or approve relations that are inconsistent with its beliefs”. Choose between. Roberts went on to say that the question before the court was whether the constitution allowed the city to impose such a burden.

Although CSS had asked the court to dismiss SmithRoberts pointed out that there is no need for the court to consider this issue because the city’s policies are not “universally applicable.” Roberts emphasized that CSS was accused of violating a clause in the city’s standard foster care contract, which prohibits rejection of foster parents based on sexual orientation, including a personal exemption system that allows the city’s human affairs commissioner to serve her “self Decide to grant.

The court then reviewed the exclusion of CSS from the foster care system under the most stringent constitutional test (called strict review) and concluded that it could not be passed. Roberts wrote that the city did not indicate that its goals of maximizing the number of foster families and minimizing the city’s responsibilities would be compromised by granting CSS a non-discrimination policy. Instead, Roberts suggested, “Incorporating CSS in the plan seems likely to increase rather than reduce the number of adoptive parents available.” Roberts acknowledged that the city has a “significant” interest in “equal treatment of prospective adoptive parents and children,” but he must The conclusion is that “justifying the rejection of CSS as an exception to its religious activities” is not enough, especially when the city has an exemption.

In his 77-page agreement, Alito argued that the court Smith It is “strict control”, that is, “mature review”. He complained that after devoting all the time and attention to the case, the Supreme Court issued only “a strand of decision that left religious freedom in a state of confusion and fragility. Those who expect this court to support the First Amendment have every right to feel Disappointed,” Alito concluded. He added: “Me too.”

This article is Originally published in Howe on the Court.