Supreme Court Strengthens Free Exercise Protections in Foster Care Contracts

Introduction

The landmark case of Sharonell Fulton, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, et al. (141 S. Ct. 1868) addressed the intersection of religious freedom and non-discrimination principles within the context of foster care services. Catholic Social Services (CSS), a long-standing foster care agency in Philadelphia, refused to certify same-sex couples as foster parents, citing deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. In response, the City of Philadelphia mandated that CSS either comply with its non-discrimination policies or face termination of its foster care contracts. CSS, along with affiliated foster parents, challenged the City's actions, arguing that they infringed upon their First Amendment rights.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a decision delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, reversed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court held that Philadelphia's refusal to renew contracts with CSS unless it certified same-sex couples as foster parents violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Court determined that the City's policies were not neutral and generally applicable, thereby imposing a substantial burden on CSS's religious practices without a compelling governmental interest.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced key precedents to underpin its decision:

• SHERBERT v. VERNER (1963): Established that laws burdening religious exercise must serve a compelling interest and be narrowly tailored.
• Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith (1990): Held that generally applicable laws do not violate the Free Exercise Clause even if they incidentally burden religious practices.
• Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah (1993): Reinforced that laws targeting specific religious practices fail the neutrality and general applicability tests.

The Court differentiated this case from Smith by highlighting that Philadelphia's policies allowed for discretionary exceptions, making them neither neutral nor generally applicable. This departure was crucial in determining the violation of the Free Exercise rights.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning centered on evaluating whether the City's foster care contract provisions were neutral and generally applicable:

• Neutrality: The City's requirement did not target CSS's religious beliefs directly but aimed to enforce non-discrimination across all foster agencies.
• General Applicability: The inclusion of a "sole discretion" clause for exceptions under section 3.21 meant that the non-discrimination policy was not uniformly applicable. This flexibility allowed the City to selectively impose burdens on CSS's practices.

By introducing mechanisms for discretionary exceptions, the City's policies invited the government to consider the reasons behind CSS's conduct. According to Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, this compromised the neutrality of the law, thereby subjecting it to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving religious institutions and government contracts:

• Strengthened Free Exercise Protections: Religious organizations can now assert stronger protections against governmental requirements that conflict with their beliefs.
• Government Contracting: Municipalities and other governmental entities must ensure that their contracting policies are both neutral and generally applicable to avoid infringing on religious freedoms.
• Broader Legal Landscape: The decision sets a precedent for evaluating similar cases where religious practices are at odds with secular policies, particularly in areas like education, healthcare, and social services.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Neutral and Generally Applicable

Neutral and generally applicable laws are those that apply to everyone alike without targeting or singling out particular groups. In this case, while the City's non-discrimination policy appeared neutral on its face, the allowance for discretionary exceptions meant it was not uniformly enforced, thereby affecting CSS differently based on their religious practices.

Strict Scrutiny

Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of judicial review. For a law subject to strict scrutiny to be upheld, it must serve a compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest without unnecessarily burdening constitutional rights. Since Philadelphia's policies were not neutral and generally applicable, they failed this test.

Free Exercise Clause

The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals' rights to practice their religion without undue interference from the government. However, this protection is balanced against governmental interests, particularly when laws are neither neutral nor generally applicable.

Conclusion