Supreme Court agrees to hear Philadelphia faith-based adoption agency case

On February 24, 2020, the Supreme court agreed to hear an appealA request made after a trial by a party that has lost on one or more issues that a higher court review the decision to determine if it was correct. To make such a request is "to appeal" or "to take an appeal." One who appeals is called the "appellant;" the other party is the "appellee." brought against the city of Philadelphia by Catholic Social Services (CSS) and several foster parents. The city has a standingThe legal right to bring a lawsuit. A party must show that it faces enough harm or is permitted by law to pursue a case. Without standing, a case can be dismissed without a decision on the merits of the case. policy of not referring foster children to CSS because CSS will not certify same-sex couples as foster parents in violation of Catholic religious beliefs. The lower courts upheldThe appellate court agrees with the lower court decision and allows it to stand. the city's position. Under the applicable law, adoption services must be contracted through the city and cannot be completed privately, so the city's policy requires CSS to provide adoption services for same-sex couples if it is to operate.

The three-part question before the Court is as follows:

"Whether free exerciseThe ability to practice one's religion without hindrance as expressed in the 1st Amendment. Can be limited depending on how it affects other people. 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. SmithEmployment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. should be revisited; and (3) whether the 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."

The first point addresses diversity of opinions in the lower courts and asks the Supreme Court to decide which interpretation is correct. The second point takes direct aim at Employment Division v. Smith, the 1990 "peyote case" in which the Court ruled that the government can enforce laws that incidentally burden religious beliefs or practices so long as they do not single out a religious group and apply equally to everyone. In this case, the non-discrimination provision is neutral but effectively means that CSS cannot provide these services.

The issue1. The disputed point between parties in a lawsuit; 2. To send out officially, as in a court issuing an order. of whether religious organizations, businesses, or individual sole proprietorships can be exempted from state-level non-discrimination laws has become a major issue in recent years, and the issue of religious freedom versus non-discrimination rights will likely become a central issue of the upcoming election in the United States where President Donald Trump is supportive of individual free exercise of religion rights in businesses while opponents have argued that it does not extend to potentially discriminatory business policies and practices. While the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) protects the free exercise of religion against actions of the federal government, it does not apply to states which have been addressing the issue on their own.