Term: 2020
Docket: 19-123
Fulton v. City Of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Pro
19-123 FULTON V. PHILADELPHIA, PA DECISION BELOW: 922 F.3d 140 CERT. GRANTED 2/24/2020 QUESTION PRESENTED: The City of Philadelphia chose to exclude a religious agency from the City's foster care system unless the agency agreed to act and speak in a manner inconsistent with its sincere religious beliefs about marriage. The Third Circuit upheld that action under Employment Division v. Smith. The questions presented are: 1. Whether free exercise plaintiffs can only succeed by proving a particular type of discrimination claim-namely that the government would allow the same conduct by someone who held different religious views-as two circuits have held, or whether courts must consider other evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable, as six circuits have held? 2. Whether Employment Division v. Smith should be revisited? 3. Whether a government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency's ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency's religious beliefs? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 18-2574
The Fulton v. City of Philadelphia case in 2020 revolved around the issue of religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. The Catholic Social Services (CSS), a foster care agency, refused to certify same-sex couples as potential foster parents due to its religious beliefs against homosexuality. This led the city of Philadelphia to stop referring children to CSS, arguing that their policy violated the city's non-discrimination law. CSS sued, claiming this action infringed on their First Amendment rights - specifically free exercise of religion and free speech. In June 2021, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of CSS stating that Philadelphia’s refusal to contract with CSS unless it agreed to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because it was not neutral or generally applicable law but rather involved discretionary exceptions.
In the dissenting opinion for Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority's ruling was a departure from established precedent and could have far-reaching implications beyond this specific case. She contended that Catholic Social Services (CSS), which refused to certify same-sex couples as foster parents due to religious beliefs, was not entitled to an exception from the city's anti-discrimination policy because it is a government contractor performing a public function. The justice expressed concern about potential harm caused by allowing private entities contracted by the government to discriminate based on religious beliefs. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “neutral” and “generally applicable” laws under Employment Division v Smith standard and criticized them for sidestepping this important question instead of addressing it directly.
