Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
Overview
Overview
The Supreme Court unanimously held that Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause when it refused to renew its foster care contract with Catholic Social Services because the agency would not certify same-sex couples as foster parents. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court, though the majority declined to overrule Employment Division v. Smith (1990).
The Facts
Facts
Catholic Social Services has operated as a foster care placement agency in Philadelphia for over a century under contract with the city. After a news report revealed CSS's policy of declining to certify same-sex couples based on religious belief, Philadelphia refused to refer additional children to CSS and declined to renew its contract unless CSS agreed to certify all qualified families. CSS sued, arguing the city's actions violated the Free Exercise Clause.
The Issue
Issue
Whether Philadelphia's refusal to contract with Catholic Social Services unless it abandoned its religious policy against certifying same-sex couples violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
The Rules
Rule
Under Employment Division v. Smith (1990), generally applicable and religiously neutral laws do not trigger heightened scrutiny. A law that contains mechanisms for individualized exemptions is not generally applicable and must satisfy strict scrutiny when applied to burden religious exercise.
The Application
Analysis
Philadelphia's existing practice of permitting CSS to operate under contract despite its known religious objection to certifying same-sex couples demonstrated that the city's non-discrimination policy was not generally applicable. Because the policy contained mechanisms for individualized exemptions, strict scrutiny applied, and Philadelphia could not satisfy it by enforcing uniform standards when it had previously accommodated CSS's religious practices. The Court thus held that Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by singling out CSS's religious practice for exclusion from a benefit it had previously granted.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
The ruling protects religious social service providers from being excluded from government contracting solely because of their religious practices, at least when the government's policy allows for individualized exemptions. The Court declined to revisit Smith, leaving the broader question of religious exemptions from neutral laws to future cases.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support