Read Time: 06 minutes

In a discrimination against religious belief case, Supreme Court of United States on 17 June, 2021 held that the state of Philadelphia violated a Catholic foster care agency’s First Amendment’s free exercise clause by trying to force the agency, in violation of its religious beliefs, to certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Catholic Social Services (CSS), an adoption and welfare agency. The court deemed that the city’s actions were not neutral toward Catholic Social Services.

The US Supreme Court stated,

“The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment.”

In March 2018, the city of Philadelphia learned that two of the agencies it hired to provide foster care services to children in the city’s care would not, based on their religious objection, accept same-sex couples as foster parents. Philadelphia informed the agencies that it would no longer refer children to them unless they agreed to comply with nondiscrimination requirements that are part of all foster care agency contracts. One of the agencies agreed to do so. The other, Catholic Social Services (CSS), sued the city, claiming the Constitution gives it the right to opt out of the nondiscrimination requirement.

CSS said that certifying same-sex couples would violate the agency's sincerely held religious beliefs that marriage is a bond between one man and one woman. In response, Philadelphia stopped sending foster care placement requests to CSS, prompting the lawsuit.

CSS further argued that Philadelphia’s actions violated the religious freedom protections under the First Amendment. Specifically, CSS asked the court to revisit the standard created in the 1990 case, Employment Division v. Smith, and either overrule it or strictly limit it.

In the past, the court has held that if the government granted exemptions for secular conduct it had to grant exemptions for comparable religious conduct; the government could not favor secular exemptions over religious ones.

In this case, the court extended that rule by and said that if a law simply gives the government discretion to grant accommodations, then the law is by definition not generally applicable.

The aforementioned First Amendment provides right of Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition.  It reads,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Significance of this ruling is that it ensures that adherents to minority faiths can come into court and argue that government bureaucrats undervalued their religious objections. This is particularly important because the government agents tasked with administering such discretionary accommodations may not understand or properly value the concerns of religious minorities.