admin
At oral argument in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy this week, the U.S. Supreme Court made something plain: Colorado cannot have it both ways. The state says it “welcomes” religious preschools into its taxpayer-funded Universal Preschool Program — as long as those schools renounce core beliefs about marriage and family. That demand raised red flags for several justices, and the courtroom gave a glimpse of how the Court may rule on a major free‑exercise fight.
What the Court actually heard
The case pits two Catholic parishes and the Archdiocese of Denver against Dr. Lisa Roy and Colorado’s program officials. The petitioners, backed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, say the state’s “equal opportunity” condition forces them to choose between public money and their faith. Colorado’s lawyer, Helen Norton, told the Court the rule is neutral and applies to every provider.
But neutrality sounded thin under questioning. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked, “Why not seek the win/win?” and Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed the state on whether writing a condition that a faith school cannot accept is any different from flatly excluding that school. Chief Justice John Roberts was cautious, while the liberal justices — notably Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan — pushed hard on whether taxpayer funds should come with the right to bar certain families. The split in tone made the stakes clear: either the Court narrows the limits on religious‑exercise claims or it lets states demand conformity as the price of public benefits.
Why the ruling matters beyond Colorado
This is not a narrow schoolyard spat. A decision for the petitioners could change how states design public programs nationwide. The Universal Preschool Program, funded largely by tobacco‑tax proceeds from a ballot measure, is reported to be worth roughly $6,300 per child per year for participating slots. If the Court says states cannot condition that money on abandoning religious doctrine, religious providers will have stronger protection when funding rules clash with faith.
Real families, real costs — and the politics of exclusion
Parents who want a religious education are not asking for a free pass to discriminate. They are asking not to be forced to disavow teachings they hold dear to enroll children. Plaintiffs say enrollment at Denver archdiocesan preschools has fallen and that some schools closed after the rule took effect; one family’s lost aid was reported in the press as roughly $12,000. Colorado likes to preach “inclusion.” But its policy looks a lot like exclusion dressed up as neutrality. If taxpayers fund preschool, they should not force faith communities to choose between doctrine and taking part.
What happens next is straightforward: the Court will issue a written opinion later this term. If the conservative majority follows the line of questioning it showed at argument, religious schools will get stronger protection. If the liberals hold, states will keep wide latitude to condition funds on nondiscrimination promises. Either way, this decision will shape how governments write the rules for public benefits and whether religious exercise remains a protected sphere free from coerced conformity. For anyone who believes in religious liberty, the message from the bench this week was encouraging — and Colorado should rethink its “welcome” before the Court turns it into a constitutional rebuke.
