The U.S. Supreme Court’s new term features several high-profile religious liberty cases that could reshape how faith and law intersect. Beyond the courthouse, battles over vaccine mandates, religion in schools, and same-sex marriage continue to make headlines. This newsletter breaks down the key cases and developments in clear language – no law degree required.
Supreme Court Religious Liberty Cases to Watch
The Supreme Court is set to hear multiple cases this term dealing with religious freedom. These cases cover issues from tax exemptions for faith-based charities to parental rights in school curriculum and the role of religion in public charter schools. Below, we outline each case with the essential details:
Tax Exemption for Religious Charity – Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin LIRC (No. 24-154)
Argued/Scheduled: March 31, 2025 (scheduled)
Issue: Can a state deny a religious organization a tax exemption by deeming its activities not “religious” enough, without violating the First Amendment’s religion clauses? (Justices take up cases on religious tax exemption and California climate change mandate – SCOTUSblog)
Facts: Catholic Charities Bureau, controlled by the Catholic Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, provides services to people with disabilities and others in need. It sought an exemption from the state’s unemployment tax, claiming it is operated “primarily for religious purposes.” However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the exemption, reasoning that the charity’s work was “primarily charitable and secular” rather than “typical” religious activity (Justices take up cases on religious tax exemption and California climate change mandate – SCOTUSblog) (Justices take up cases on religious tax exemption and California climate change mandate – SCOTUSblog). The state court noted the charity does not evangelize or provide religious materials through its social services (Justices take up cases on religious tax exemption and California climate change mandate – SCOTUSblog). Catholic Charities argues this ruling forces courts to second-guess what counts as a religious ministry, entangling the government in religious matters (Justices take up cases on religious tax exemption and California climate change mandate – SCOTUSblog). They warn that money taken in taxes is “money that otherwise could be helping the needy,” highlighting the impact on their charitable efforts (Justices take up cases on religious tax exemption and California climate change mandate – SCOTUSblog).
Why It Matters: This case will clarify how far states can go in defining what is “religious.” A ruling will affect faith-based nonprofits nationwide: if states can label certain charitable works as not religious, those ministries could lose legal benefits (like tax exemptions) that secular groups might enjoy (Justices take up cases on religious tax exemption and California climate change mandate – SCOTUSblog). A decision in favor of Catholic Charities could bolster legal protections for religious social-service organizations, ensuring they aren’t penalized for serving the public without overtly religious activities. A decision for Wisconsin might affirm states’ authority to require a clear religious doctrinal purpose before granting special tax status, even if it means religious charities pay taxes like secular nonprofits.
School Curriculum and Religious Opt-Outs – Mahmoud v. Taylor (No. 24-297)
Argued/Scheduled: April 22, 2025 (scheduled)
Issue: Do public schools violate parents’ religious freedom by requiring young children to participate in LGBTQ-themed lessons without allowing parents to opt out? (Justices take up Maryland parents’ challenge to LGBTQ books in schools – SCOTUSblog)
Facts: In Montgomery County, Maryland, the public schools added storybooks featuring LGBTQ characters and themes (such as “Pride Puppy,” an ABCs book about a puppy at a pride parade) to the elementary curriculum in 2022 (Justices take up Maryland parents’ challenge to LGBTQ books in schools – SCOTUSblog). Initially, the school district allowed parents to receive notice and excuse their children from these lessons if they conflicted with the family’s faith. But in March 2023, the policy changed – no more opt-outs or advance notice for the pride-themed storybooks (Justices take up Maryland parents’ challenge to LGBTQ books in schools – SCOTUSblog). A diverse group of parents – Muslim, Jewish, and Christian – sued, saying the mandatory exposure of their kids to lessons on gender and sexuality violates their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion (Justices take up Maryland parents’ challenge to LGBTQ books in schools – SCOTUSblog) (Justices take up Maryland parents’ challenge to LGBTQ books in schools – SCOTUSblog). Lower courts refused to grant an injunction; the Fourth Circuit reasoned that, based on the limited record so far, the parents hadn’t shown that merely seeing the books compelled them to violate their faith (Justices take up Maryland parents’ challenge to LGBTQ books in schools – SCOTUSblog). The Supreme Court took up the case, meaning it will now address whether the school’s no-opt-out policy places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ religious upbringing of their children (Justices take up Maryland parents’ challenge to LGBTQ books in schools – SCOTUSblog).
Why It Matters: This case sits at the heart of the culture wars. For religious parents, it’s about control over their children’s moral and religious education – they argue they should not be forced into an ideological conflict with the school over teachings on sexuality at the elementary level (Justices take up Maryland parents’ challenge to LGBTQ books in schools – SCOTUSblog). For public school systems and LGBTQ advocates, a ruling for the parents could open the door to broad opt-outs that might undermine inclusive curricula. A Supreme Court decision will likely establish how public schools nationwide must accommodate (or need not accommodate) religious objections to parts of the curriculum. It could either reaffirm that schools have leeway to expose students to diverse ideas, or it could bolster parents’ rights to shield their kids from lessons that contradict their faith. In short, the outcome will influence the balance between educational objectives and religious liberty in the classroom (Justices take up Maryland parents’ challenge to LGBTQ books in schools – SCOTUSblog) (Justices take up Maryland parents’ challenge to LGBTQ books in schools – SCOTUSblog).
Religious Charter Schools and Public Funding – Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board v. Drummond & St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond (Nos. 24-394 & 24-396)
Argued/Scheduled: April 30, 2025 (scheduled)
Issue: Can a state exclude a religious school from a publicly funded charter program without violating the Free Exercise Clause – or conversely, is running an overtly religious charter school an unconstitutional mingling of church and state? (Petition to establish nation’s first religious charter school reaches Supreme Court | K-12 Dive)
Facts: These consolidated cases arise from Oklahoma, which was set to host the nation’s first faith-based public charter school. St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, an online school run by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and Diocese of Tulsa, applied and was approved (in a 3–2 board vote) to join the state’s charter school system in 2023 (Petition to establish nation’s first religious charter school reaches Supreme Court | K-12 Dive) (Petition to establish nation’s first religious charter school reaches Supreme Court | K-12 Dive). Charter schools are publicly funded but privately operated; until now, they have been required to be secular. Oklahoma’s Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, sued to block St. Isidore’s opening, arguing that a public school that is openly religious violates the state constitution and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (Petition to establish nation’s first religious charter school reaches Supreme Court | K-12 Dive). In June 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed and blocked the charter, calling the plan unconstitutional (the school would have been funded by taxpayers yet controlled by a Catholic organization) (Religious Charter School Is Unconstitutional, Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules) (Petition to establish nation’s first religious charter school reaches Supreme Court | K-12 Dive). The charter school and state board appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. They contend that excluding religious schools from the charter program is a form of religious discrimination. The petition asks whether Oklahoma’s refusal to fund St. Isidore amounts to unconstitutional “religious hostility” – denying the school the right to participate “solely because of [its] religious character.” (Petition to establish nation’s first religious charter school reaches Supreme Court | K-12 Dive). They also ask the Court to consider if a private religious school’s activities would even count as state action, since the charter would be run by the church with state funds (Petition to establish nation’s first religious charter school reaches Supreme Court | K-12 Dive). On the other side, Oklahoma officials and civil-liberty groups argue that charter schools are legally public schools and must be secular and open to all. They warn that allowing a religious charter school would force taxpayers to fund religious instruction and even discrimination (St. Isidore plans to hire and teach consistent with Catholic beliefs) (Statement on Supreme Court Agreeing to Hear Oklahoma Case Involving Nation’s First Religious Public Charter School – Education Law Center) (Statement on Supreme Court Agreeing to Hear Oklahoma Case Involving Nation’s First Religious Public Charter School – Education Law Center). AG Drummond bluntly cautioned that approving one faith-based charter could “open the floodgates” – in his vivid example, “forcing taxpayers to fund all manner of religious indoctrination, including radical Islam or even the Church of Satan.” (Petition to establish nation’s first religious charter school reaches Supreme Court | K-12 Dive)
Why It Matters: This is a landmark test of whether school choice programs can include explicitly religious options. In recent years, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has ruled that if states subsidize private education (such as through vouchers or scholarships), they generally cannot bar religious schools from those programs without violating free exercise rights (Petition to establish nation’s first religious charter school reaches Supreme Court | K-12 Dive). However, this case goes further – a charter school is not just funded by the state but part of the state’s public school system. A ruling in favor of St. Isidore could blur or even erase the historic church-state line in public education, potentially allowing religious public schools nationwide (Petition to establish nation’s first religious charter school reaches Supreme Court | K-12 Dive) (Petition to establish nation’s first religious charter school reaches Supreme Court | K-12 Dive). This would be celebrated by those who feel religious communities should have equal access to public programs, but alarm others who fear erosion of the separation of church and state. On the flip side, if the Court sides with Oklahoma and keeps charters strictly secular, it will affirm that public schools (including charters) cannot be religious – at least not without violating the Establishment Clause or state constitutional provisions. However the Court rules, the decision will have sweeping implications for education policy: expect either a green light for the first state-sponsored religious charter schools or a strong reaffirmation that public school funds cannot be used for religious instruction (Statement on Supreme Court Agreeing to Hear Oklahoma Case Involving Nation’s First Religious Public Charter School – Education Law Center) (Petition to establish nation’s first religious charter school reaches Supreme Court | K-12 Dive).
COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates and Religious Exemptions
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine mandate disputes have become a major front in religious liberty debates. At issue is how to balance public health requirements against individuals’ sincerely held religious objections. Over the past few years, this conflict has played out in hospitals, military bases, and courts across the country:
- Healthcare Workers: Many hospitals and states imposed COVID-19 vaccination mandates on doctors, nurses, and staff – sometimes with no religious exemption. For example, New York required all healthcare workers to vaccinate and did not allow religious opt-outs, citing the need to protect patients. Some nurses and doctors sued, arguing this policy violated their First Amendment rights (they objected to the vaccines due to religious beliefs, such as opposition to vaccines tested on fetal cell lines). The Supreme Court, at the height of the pandemic, largely declined to intervene. In late 2021, the Court turned away an emergency challenge to New York’s mandate, leaving it in place over the dissent of three justices ( Supreme Court declines to halt New York vaccine mandate for health care workers – CBS News). Justice Neil Gorsuch warned that New York’s rule “clearly interferes with the free exercise of religion” and lamented that thousands of medical workers were being cast aside for their faith-driven refusal ( Supreme Court declines to halt New York vaccine mandate for health care workers – CBS News). (New York, for its part, argued that allowing unvaccinated staff – even with testing – posed undue risk to vulnerable patients.) Now, with the immediate crisis past, many of these mandates have expired or been lifted. But the legal battles continue: some fired healthcare workers have filed lawsuits for wrongful termination on religious grounds. Notably, a June 2023 jury verdict awarded $687,000 to a Tennessee worker fired for refusing the COVID shot due to her Christian beliefs about fetal cells (Why workers fired for refusing Covid vaccines are starting to win in court | Reuters). Her win may be a sign of things to come. In 2023, the Supreme Court raised the bar for employers who deny religious accommodations – ruling in Groff v. DeJoy that an employer must show a “substantial” cost, not a trivial burden, to reject a request (Why workers fired for refusing Covid vaccines are starting to win in court | Reuters). This higher standard for “undue hardship” (Why workers fired for refusing Covid vaccines are starting to win in court | Reuters) is already emboldening employees’ claims that they could have been accommodated (through masking, testing, remote work, etc.) instead of being fired for refusing the vaccine (Why workers fired for refusing Covid vaccines are starting to win in court | Reuters) (Why workers fired for refusing Covid vaccines are starting to win in court | Reuters). In short, while courts initially sided with public health in the pandemic’s peak, the post-pandemic legal landscape is shifting in favor of workers seeking religious exemptions.
- Military Service Members: The U.S. military also mandated COVID-19 vaccines for all troops, triggering resistance from a minority of service members who cited religious objections. The services received thousands of requests for religious accommodation but approved almost none, leading to accusations that the policy trampled service members’ religious rights. Several groups of sailors, soldiers, and Marines (including a group of Navy SEALs) filed lawsuits, often under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), claiming the military unfairly denied every religious exemption request (DoD settles COVID vaccine mandate lawsuits for $1.8 million). Early on, some federal judges blocked the military from disciplining certain unvaccinated religious plaintiffs, but the Supreme Court mostly allowed the Pentagon to enforce its rules during the emergency. By January 2023, however, Congress ordered the Department of Defense to rescind the military vaccine mandate, effectively ending it. This year, the fallout is being sorted out. In October 2023, the Pentagon agreed to settle two of the major lawsuits by paying $1.8 million to cover the plaintiffs’ legal fees (DoD settles COVID vaccine mandate lawsuits for $1.8 million). The settlement, stemming from cases like Navy SEALs 1–26 v. Biden, was hailed by religious liberty advocates as a victory – one group declared, “The military COVID shot mandate is dead.” (DoD settles COVID vaccine mandate lawsuits for $1.8 million) (DoD settles COVID vaccine mandate lawsuits for $1.8 million) Under the agreement, the armed forces also rolled out measures to make things right: service members who were punished or discharged can get their records corrected and rejoin if eligible (Navy SEALs, Sailors Who Refused COVID Vaccine Will Have …). Meanwhile, in April 2024 the Supreme Court declined to hear a case brought by 39 military chaplains who said their careers suffered because they refused the vaccine. The Court’s refusal let stand a lower ruling that the issue was moot now that the mandate is gone (Supreme Court Rejects Military Chaplains’ Lawsuit Claiming Refusal of COVID-19 Vaccine Hurt Their Careers | Military.com). Even so, that case underscored lingering concerns – the chaplains claimed ongoing stigma and missed promotions, but without an active mandate, the judiciary stepped back. Going forward, the military has stated it will not penalize members for past refusals and will consider applications to retroactively restore benefits (Navy SEALs, Sailors Who Refused COVID Vaccine Will Have …). The broader significance is that the services – like other employers – learned that blanket denials of religious accommodation can prompt sharp legal backlash. Any future military vaccine requirements will likely have to seriously weigh religious requests, or else face fresh court challenges.
In summary, COVID-19 mandates tested the boundaries of religious liberty in unprecedented ways. During the crisis, courts often deferred to public health officials. But as emergency conditions recede, we’re seeing a course correction: institutions are settling with those affected, and legal precedents (like the Groff decision) are swinging the pendulum back toward accommodating religious beliefs even in the workplace (Why workers fired for refusing Covid vaccines are starting to win in court | Reuters). This tension between collective safety and individual conscience remains delicate – a “grim story,” as Justice Gorsuch put it ( Supreme Court declines to halt New York vaccine mandate for health care workers – CBS News), that is still unfolding in our legal system.
Religion in Public Schools: New State Laws
Questions about religion’s role in public schools aren’t limited to courtroom fights; state legislatures have jumped into the fray. Recently, several states have passed or proposed new laws that push the envelope on prayer and religious displays in schools, setting up potential church–state clashes. Here are a few notable developments:
(Texas Senate advances Ten Commandments, school prayer bills | The Texas Tribune) A monument of the Ten Commandments stands on the Texas Capitol grounds. Texas lawmakers are moving to require the biblical Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom (Texas could join Louisiana with a law to require the Ten Commandments in classrooms : NPR) (Texas could join Louisiana with a law to require the Ten Commandments in classrooms : NPR).
- Ten Commandments in Classrooms: Texas is on the verge of enacting a law to require public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom (Texas could join Louisiana with a law to require the Ten Commandments in classrooms : NPR). The proposal sailed through the Texas Senate and is backed by top state leaders as a priority (Texas Senate advances Ten Commandments, school prayer bills | The Texas Tribune) (Texas Senate advances Ten Commandments, school prayer bills | The Texas Tribune). Supporters, including the bill’s sponsors, argue the Ten Commandments are a foundational historical document that students should know (Texas could join Louisiana with a law to require the Ten Commandments in classrooms : NPR). However, critics say this plainly promotes one religion (specifically, a Judeo-Christian text) in violation of the First Amendment. In fact, Texas is following Louisiana’s lead: Louisiana passed a similar law in 2024, although a federal judge swiftly blocked it as “overtly religious” and unconstitutional (Texas could join Louisiana with a law to require the Ten Commandments in classrooms : NPR). That case is now on appeal, and attorneys general from 18 other states have lined up in support of the law (Texas could join Louisiana with a law to require the Ten Commandments in classrooms : NPR). These coordinated efforts suggest a broader movement to challenge decades-old Supreme Court precedent that banned school-sponsored devotional Bible readings and prayers. Proponents are emboldened by recent Supreme Court signals that the strict separation of church and state in schools might be easing. (Notably, in 2022 the Supreme Court allowed a public high school coach to pray at the 50-yard line after games, overturning the old Lemon test and emphasizing historical tradition – a decision some saw as opening the door to more religion in the public square, even in schools.) Texas’s Ten Commandments bill, if it becomes law, is certain to be challenged in court, setting up a direct test of whether posting a religious code in every classroom passes constitutional muster under the Supreme Court’s new approach. The outcome could either affirm that such displays cross the line, or, alternatively, mark a dramatic shift affirming what supporters call the “historical” role of these religious texts in civic life.
- Prayer and Moments of Reflection: Alongside the Ten Commandments, Texas lawmakers also advanced a bill to set aside time during the school day for students to pray or reflect (Texas Senate advances Ten Commandments, school prayer bills | The Texas Tribune). The Texas Senate’s bill would permit (though not require) public school districts to designate a period for prayer and Bible reading on campus. While moments of silence have long been allowed in schools as a neutral practice, this Texas proposal is more explicit in encouraging prayer. It reflects a growing confidence among religious conservatives that recent court rulings give schools more leeway to accommodate faith. Other states have considered similar measures. Supporters say students shouldn’t have to “check their faith at the door” and that giving an opportunity to pray can support students’ freedom of religion. Opponents worry that these laws will pressure kids to participate or make nonreligious and non-Christian students feel like outsiders. The constitutional line here is whether such policies truly remain voluntary and non-coercive. If a “prayer time” crosses into endorsement of religion, it could run afoul of the Establishment Clause. Expect legal scrutiny of these policies as they roll out – school districts will have to implement them carefully to avoid favoring one faith or prayer practice.
- “In God We Trust” and Other Displays: In some states, lawmakers have pursued less controversial ways to insert religion into schools. A common example is requiring or permitting the display of the national motto “In God We Trust” in public schools. Since “In God We Trust” is the U.S. motto (and has been upheld in other contexts as ceremonial or patriotic), bills mandating its display have passed in states like Florida, Texas, South Dakota, and others in recent years. These laws have generally not been struck down, as courts consider the motto a form of civil ceremony rather than a purely religious statement. Still, they contribute to the ongoing debate over religious expression in schools. Meanwhile, some districts have grappled with student-led religious clubs and activities. For instance, after the Supreme Court’s decision in the coach prayer case (Kennedy v. Bremerton, 2022), schools from Pennsylvania to California have seen disputes over when and where students and staff can pray, hold Bible studies, or post religious flyers on campus. The trend in legislation is clearly toward expanding room for religion in the school setting, encouraged by a Supreme Court perceived as more sympathetic to free exercise claims.
Overall, new state laws are testing the limits of the First Amendment in schools. The wave of Ten Commandments bills is the boldest challenge – a direct affront to the precedent that public schools shouldn’t endorse specific religious doctrines. How the courts respond (and ultimately how the Supreme Court rules, if these issues reach it) will determine whether we’re witnessing a lasting shift that permits more religion in public education, or a temporary flurry of laws that will be struck down for going too far. For now, public school officials are caught in the middle: they must follow state mandates but also uphold students’ constitutional rights, navigating questions like “Can we put this Ten Commandments poster up?” or “How do we handle a prayer period?” with no recent roadmap. It’s a developing area to watch, as legal tensions between religious heritage and religious neutrality play out in our nation’s schools.
Same-Sex Marriage and Ongoing Religious Freedom Tensions
Nearly a decade after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the conflict between LGBTQ rights and religious liberty continues to generate lawsuits, legislation, and cultural debate. While same-sex couples have the right to marry, some religious individuals and institutions struggle with participating in or recognizing those marriages, leading to a series of legal showdowns:
- Wedding Vendors and “Creative” Services: One of the most fraught flashpoints is wedding services. Bakers, florists, photographers, and others with religious objections to same-sex marriage have at times refused to provide custom services for gay weddings, citing their beliefs. This has led to civil rights complaints and lawsuits under anti-discrimination laws, which forbid businesses open to the public from discriminating based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has now heard multiple cases on this issue. The first was the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in 2018, involving a Colorado baker. The Court ruled narrowly in the baker’s favor, focusing on specific anti-religious bias by the state civil rights commission, but stopped short of a broad rule about future cases. The clash came back in a big way with 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis in 2023. In that case, web designer Lorie Smith preemptively challenged Colorado’s law because she did not want to be compelled to create wedding websites celebrating same-sex marriages, which her Christian beliefs do not condone (The Implications of 303 Creative Decision: What to Know | TIME). The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision, sided with the designer – but notably on free speech grounds rather than free exercise of religion (US Supreme Court deals blow to LGBT rights in web designer case | Reuters) (The Implications of 303 Creative Decision: What to Know | TIME). The Court held that the government cannot force an individual or business to express messages contrary to their conscience. Designing a custom wedding website was deemed a form of expressive speech, so Colorado’s law, as applied, would compel Smith to “create speech that she does not believe”, violating the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause (US Supreme Court deals blow to LGBT rights in web designer case | Reuters) (US Supreme Court deals blow to LGBT rights in web designer case | Reuters). The three liberal justices dissented vigorously, warning that this was the first time the Court granted a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse service to a protected class (here, LGBTQ people) (US Supreme Court deals blow to LGBT rights in web designer case | Reuters). Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the ruling offers “a license to discriminate” and relegates same-sex couples to second-class status in the marketplace (US Supreme Court deals blow to LGBT rights in web designer case | Reuters). Supporters of the decision, however, argue that it was a win for artistic and religious freedom – ensuring that people aren’t forced by the state to betray their core beliefs in their creative work (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis – Wikipedia). Why does this matter? Because even though 303 Creative was framed as a speech case, it has profound implications for religious liberty and LGBTQ equality. Already, the ruling is being cited by other vendors who seek exemptions from LGBTQ anti-discrimination rules. For example, some wedding photographers and venues have signaled that they too will decline same-sex ceremonies, claiming their work is “expressive” and protected. Lower courts will have to grapple with where the line is: the 303 Creative decision was supposed to be narrow (the majority said it was not giving blanket immunity to all discrimination (The Implications of 303 Creative Decision: What to Know | TIME) (The Implications of 303 Creative Decision: What to Know | TIME)), but it certainly created a crack. LGBTQ advocates fear it will enable broader denial of services – as one expert said, people see it as “a green light” to discriminate, even if that’s not what the law explicitly says (The Implications of 303 Creative Decision: What to Know | TIME) (The Implications of 303 Creative Decision: What to Know | TIME). On the other side, religious conservatives feel vindicated that their rights to not express support for same-sex marriage have been upheld in at least some contexts ([PDF] 21-476 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (06/30/2023) – Supreme Court). The tension here is far from resolved. Future cases may ask: what about less “expressive” services (like a rental hall or a limousine)? Does 303 Creative open the door for those businesses to claim exemption, or will anti-discrimination laws hold firm there? These questions ensure that the intersection of faith and same-sex marriage will stay on the legal agenda.
- Foster Care, Adoption, and Other Services: Beyond weddings, conflicts have arisen in settings like foster care agencies and other religious nonprofits. In Fulton v. Philadelphia (2021), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Philadelphia violated a Catholic charity’s rights by barring it from foster care placements because the charity wouldn’t certify same-sex couples as foster parents. However, that decision was tailored to Philadelphia’s specific contract system and did not announce a broad rule. Many religious adoption and foster agencies worry about being forced to choose between their traditional beliefs about marriage and their government licenses or funding. The Fulton case suggested that if a law is generally applicable with no system of individual exemptions, a religious agency might not have a way out – unless the Court revisits earlier precedents. The area remains a patchwork: some states have laws that protect religious foster care agencies (allowing them to decline placements contrary to their faith), while other states and cities insist that any agency working with the public must comply with non-discrimination rules. The Supreme Court’s current trajectory – favoring religious claimants in many instances – suggests that if a case presented a direct conflict, the Court might lean toward accommodating the religious agency, especially given the 2023 signals from 303 Creative that conscience rights are highly protected.
- Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) and Religious Protections: In 2022, Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act, a landmark law ensuring federal recognition of same-sex marriages (and requiring states to recognize each other’s marriages) in case the Supreme Court ever revisits Obergefell. Notably, the RFMA included robust religious liberty provisions as a compromise to gain bipartisan support (Respect for Marriage Act doesn’t revoke tax-exempt status from churches | AP News) (Respect for Marriage Act doesn’t revoke tax-exempt status from churches | AP News). The law explicitly states that churches, religious nonprofits, and religious schools cannot be forced to participate in or support a marriage that goes against their beliefs (Respect for Marriage Act doesn’t revoke tax-exempt status from churches | AP News). For instance, a church cannot be required to host a same-sex wedding ceremony, and a faith-based social service agency won’t lose tax-exempt status for refusing to recognize a same-sex union (Respect for Marriage Act doesn’t revoke tax-exempt status from churches | AP News) (Respect for Marriage Act doesn’t revoke tax-exempt status from churches | AP News). This was a clear acknowledgment by lawmakers that tensions persist – even as same-sex marriage is protected, religious objections are also given space. The RFMA doesn’t resolve all conflicts (it primarily deals with institutions, not individual business owners), but it shows an attempt to balance equality with religious conscience. Some religious liberty advocates argue these protections need to go further, while some LGBTQ advocates were initially wary that the RFMA’s language might be too accommodating (though major LGBTQ rights groups ultimately supported the bill, noting it was a net gain for marriage recognition while leaving broader anti-discrimination laws intact).
- The Road Ahead: “Ongoing” truly describes this arena. We continue to see legal challenges at the state level: for example, the owners of a wedding cake shop in Oregon (Sweet Cakes by Melissa) have been in years of litigation after being penalized under state law for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. Their case has bounced up and down the courts; the Supreme Court sent it back for reconsideration after Masterpiece, and after Oregon courts largely stood by the penalty, the couple petitioned the Supreme Court again. In light of 303 Creative, the Supreme Court in June 2023 vacated the Oregon decision and told the state court to look yet again, suggesting that the justices saw possible free speech issues similar to 303 Creative (Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries – Wikipedia). This indicates the Supreme Court isn’t done refining the law here. Meanwhile, states are adopting different stances: some have strengthened LGBTQ non-discrimination laws, while others have proposed broad “religious freedom” exemptions. For example, a few states considered (or passed) laws allowing any business to refuse services that conflict with the owner’s religious beliefs – essentially state-level versions of what 303 Creative achieved through litigation. These laws often face legal challenges immediately. And consider individual government officials: Not long ago, county clerks like Kim Davis in Kentucky made headlines for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on religious grounds. Most of those disputes have been resolved (with clerks either complying or resigning, and systems put in place to ensure couples get licenses), but they underscore how personal and deeply felt this conflict can be.
At its core, this enduring tension asks: How do we ensure equal rights for same-sex couples while respecting freedom of religion? Thus far, the trend in the Supreme Court has been to look for win-win solutions (like protecting religious speech rights without directly overturning LGBTQ protections broadly). But critics of the recent decisions argue that the wins seem to be one-sided, tilting more toward religious claimants and potentially hollowing out the promise of equality for LGBTQ citizens. The Court emphatically insists that “tolerance is a two-way street.” We’re likely to see that philosophy tested further in upcoming years. For everyday people, this means that a same-sex couple planning a wedding might still encounter the occasional vendor refusal – but also that a religious artisan can cite Supreme Court precedent in declining to express messages contrary to their faith. Society and the legal system are still working out the boundaries, trying to prevent a zero-sum game. And unlike the swift acceptance of interracial marriage decades ago, the same-sex marriage vs. religion debate remains a live wire. It’s a reminder that even after a Supreme Court ruling settles one question (the right to marry), the ripples of that decision interact with other rights, leading to new questions that demand answers.
Sources: This article draws on reporting from SCOTUSblog, Reuters, The New York Times, and other reputable outlets to provide accurate case details and developments. Key information about Supreme Court cases comes from court filings and analyses (Justices take up cases on religious tax exemption and California climate change mandate – SCOTUSblog) (Justices take up Maryland parents’ challenge to LGBTQ books in schools – SCOTUSblog) (Petition to establish nation’s first religious charter school reaches Supreme Court | K-12 Dive), while examples of recent religious liberty disputes are documented by news organizations and legal experts ( Supreme Court declines to halt New York vaccine mandate for health care workers – CBS News) (US Supreme Court deals blow to LGBT rights in web designer case | Reuters). Please review original sources or consult an attorney before relying on anything in this document.
