The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on November 3 in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a Colorado case testing whether a state may bar religious preschools from its universal preschool program when their religious practices conflict with the program's anti-discrimination requirements.
At the center of the case is a condition Colorado places on every preschool joining its universal preschool program: each provider must give eligible children 'an equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool services regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing, income level, or disability.'
The preschools, overseen by the Archdiocese of Denver, say they would otherwise qualify for the program, but the rule forces them to abandon their religious beliefs. 'It is undisputed that these preschools would otherwise be eligible [universal preschool] providers,' the schools told the Supreme Court. They are, in their words, 'excluded solely because of their religious exercise,' namely their practices of ensuring that all enrolling families support the Catholic Church's teachings on sex and marriage and of treating enrolled four-year-olds in accordance with their biological sex.
The schools point to two recent Supreme Court precedents. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), the Court held that a state providing educational subsidies 'cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.' In Carson v. Makin (2022), it struck down Maine's tuition assistance program for excluding schools that offered 'sectarian' education, stating that a state's antiestablishment interest 'does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise.' Commentary on the case notes these precedents are likely to count in the schools' favor.
In related court news, Justice Elena Kagan defended the Court's conservative majority against claims that it is overly deferential to President Donald Trump, calling the charge 'a bum rap' and noting the Court recently ruled against the administration on tariffs and birthright citizenship. She separately criticized the majority's rulings on voting rights and gerrymandering, saying they have produced 'a democracy that does not work as well as it should' and that the majority 'has kind of blinded itself to the very deleterious effects of their rulings on how the political system works.'
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The Court's decision will define how far religious institutions can go in refusing to comply with nondiscrimination rules while still receiving public money.
- A ruling for the schools could strengthen religious exemptions inside government programs that touch schools, adoption services and other faith-based providers.
- A ruling for the state would signal that equal-access requirements can outweigh religious objections at the point of public funding.
Background
The case arrives after two consecutive Supreme Court victories for religious schools. In Espinoza v. Montana (2020), the Court held that states cannot disqualify religious schools from generally available scholarship programs. Two years later, in Carson v. Makin (2022), it applied the same logic to Maine's tuition assistance program, ruling that excluding sectarian schools from a public benefit because of their religious exercise is unconstitutional. St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy asks the Court to decide whether a state can avoid those precedents by attaching conditions to participation rather than excluding religious schools outright.
Key Perspectives
The Archdiocese of Denver's preschools: They contend the only barrier to participation is their religious practice, including requiring enrolling families to support Catholic teaching on sex and marriage and treating enrolled four-year-olds according to their biological sex.
Colorado's program: Participation is conditioned on every provider offering equal enrollment opportunity regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, race, religion, housing, income or disability. The state's rules therefore put the schools' religious requirements in direct conflict with a condition of public funding.
Legal commentators: The case is described as carrying 'big implications for the future of federal antidiscrimination law,' and the schools' arguments rest on Espinoza and Carson, both of which cut against states that exclude religious schools from education benefits.
What to Watch
- The November 3 oral arguments, where the justices' questions will signal whether they treat the rule as a conditions-of-funding matter or as religious discrimination.
- Whether a ruling for the schools is framed narrowly, applying only to Colorado's program, or broadly, covering all generally available public benefits.
- The final decision later in the term, and its practical effect on state anti-discrimination rules governing faith-based providers.