Catholic Agency’s Challenge Before U.S. Supreme Court Could Upend Non-Discrimination Law
U.S. Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear a case that may dramatically change laws regarding religious exemptions from non-discrimination laws.
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia will be heard by the high court during its next session which begins on the first Monday of October 2020. The case originated in the City of Philadelphia’s decision to suspend their contract with Catholic Social Services because that agency refused to place foster children with same-gender and unmarried couples.
According to the National Catholic Reporter, SCOTUS will review an appeals court’s ruling which upheld the City of Philadelphia’s decision to stop contracting with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia to place children in foster homes. Catholic Social Services, a branch of the Archdiocese, will not place children with same-gender couples because of the agency’s religious principles. The appeals court ruled that the city was not targeting the agency for religious belief, but rather sought to enforce the city’s non-discrimination policy.
In the process of hearing this case, SCOTUS will have the chance to overturn a 30-year-old decision that does not allow religious exemptions to be permitted if the law was applied generally and neutrally to all. The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed to supersede the older court decision, however that act only applies to federal agencies, not to state and local ones.
According to The Daily Beast, Fulton is being represented by Becket, the legal group most famously behind the Hobby Lobby case which eventually enabled companies to deny contraception coverage on the basis of the company’s religious ideals. Though the group claims to protect the religious liberty from “Anglican to Zoroastrian,” they have mostly worked on cases enabling discrimination by conservative Christian and Catholic organizations.
The outcome of this case could also have a serious bearing on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act actually encompasses sexual orientation and gender identity when it comes to discrimination, a question SCOTUS is taking up in two other lawsuits related to LGBTQ rights. For example, whether it is legal for a religious organization to fire someone for being LGBTQ. Bondings 2.0 recently covered the forced resignation of two LGBTQ teachers at a Catholic high school in Washington. The outcome of the SCOTUS case could have an outcome on wider cases of discrimination such as this one.
But is this case really about religious liberty or about being able to legally discriminate against LGBTQ people. The author of The Daily Beast article, Jay Michaelson, says it most succinctly:
“. . . [N]o one is trying to take away religious freedom; the question is whether that religious freedom can be used to discriminate against someone else. But of course, Becket and organizations like it aren’t really fighting for religious liberty. They’re fighting for religious hegemony; they want LGBTQ and women’s rights to be less equal than, say, civil rights.”
Unfortunately, caught in the crossfire of this case are vulnerable children needing a home. NewNowNext cites Leslie Cooper, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties UnionLGBT and HIV Project, who says that the case could affect the more than 400,000 kids in foster care nationwide:
“We already have a severe shortage of foster families willing and able to open their hearts and homes to these children. Allowing foster care agencies to exclude qualified families based on religious requirements that have nothing to do with the ability to care for a child, such as their sexual orientation or faith, would make it even worse.”
By maintaining a discriminatory policy, what message is Catholic Social Services sending to children, who may have an LGBTQ family member or maybe questioning their identities themselves? It is saying that LGBTQ people are not as capable or deserving of love and care as a heterosexual or cisgender person. So not only does this policy harm loving couples and children in need, but it harms all LGBTQ youth who hear a church urge discrimination against them. But another path is possible. LGBTQ advocates have welcomed Philadelphia’s new archbishop, Nelson Perez as a “breath of fresh air.” Bondings 2.0 has called on Archbishop Perez, to make a gesture of reconciliation with the city’s LGBTQ community by withdrawing from this suit. Now would be a good time to do so.
—Melissa Feito, New Ways Ministry, March 3, 2020
The people of this country want to be free from religion, arguably the reason the founding fathers included this in the constitution, as well as freedom of religion. The church shows its true colors here and they aren’t a rainbow.
Fulton, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, et al.
The specifics of this case are extremely tricky if one has not read at least the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals opinion and the and the plaintiffs/petitioners petition for a writ of certiorari.
As soon as the suit was initially filled in the U. S. District Court, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction against the City of Philadelphia. The court dismissed the motion. The plaintiffs on the same day filled an appeal with the Third Circuit. The Circuit Court affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the motion. The plaintiffs prepared a writ of certiorari asking the U. S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) for an emergency hearing in favor to the original motion. SCOTUS denied the emergency hearing but took the petition for certiorari in the ordinary course of business. For months, SCOTUS neither granted of denied the writ certiorari; they keep relisting the case for the next private conference. Finally, on 24-February-2020, the Court granted certiorari for the case to be heard next session this fall. So, this is all about the motion for a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction. The U. S. District Court has not yet heard the case on the merits.
As for the Archdioceses of Philadelphia withdrawing from the case, the Archdioceses is not a party in the suit. I don’t know the organizational chart of Catholic Social Services in Philadelphia. Are they part of the Archdioceses or a totally separate entity?
The first footnote of the Third Circuit’s opinion states: “That being said, District Judge Tucker commented that she ‘would prefer that the [p]arties seek … some compromise to their current dispute without court intervention.’ Id. at 667. We agree, especially given the long and constructive relationship between the parties.”
Catholic Social Services is the party that needs to withdraw from the case.