Supreme Court to take up Colorado Catholic preschool case

Photo courtesy of Markus Spiske/Pexels

The Supreme Court is soon to review another case central to the longstanding clash between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws—and, like the infamous bakery case, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, this clash is again arising from Denver, Colorado. As reported by CNN, on Monday, Apr. 20, the Supreme Court agreed to take up a case from St. Mary Catholic Parish and review a Colorado universal pre-K program “includ[ing] a nondiscrimination provision that requires each school receiving public money to provide eligible children an equal opportunity to enroll, regardless of race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity and other factors.”

According to Colorado’s Department of Early Childhood, the program in question, established in 2022, ensures that “All children in Colorado can register for up to one year, of 15 hours of tuition-free, high-quality preschool in their year before kindergarten, as defined by [their] local school district.”

The case was brought forth by the Archdiocese of Denver, which, as reported by NBC, “runs 34 preschools,” and is arguing that these preschools are being unfairly barred from the program and its funding, given that the program prohibits involved schools from barring admission on the basis of the sexual orientation or gender identity of the student or their guardians. Fox News reports that the roots of the Catholic preschools’ violations are their requirements that staff and families sign statements which the Archdiocese describes as “affirm[ing] that they will support the teachings of the Catholic Church” and that “all Catholic school families must understand and display a positive and supportive attitude toward the Catholic Church” prior to enrollment.

Two Catholic parishes in the area—in Lakewood and Littleton—are also involved in the case, as well as parishioners Daniel and Lisa Sheley. In a joint statement relayed by NBC, the Sheley’s commented, “All we want is the freedom to choose the best preschool for our kids without being punished for our faith. Colorado promised families a universal preschool program, then cut out families like ours because we chose a Catholic education.”

The Catholic parishes, noted CNN, released a similar statement, commenting, “This court promised in Obergefell that religious groups would be protected when they dissent from secular orthodoxies about marriage and sexuality…The free exercise clause simply cannot do that important work—which this court has described as ‘at the heart of our pluralistic society’—if it can be so easily evaded.”

In response, Politico notes that Colorado officials “have emphasized that their program deliberately includes faith-based preschools but requires them to abide by the state’s anti-discrimination laws, including those forbidding discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.”

Politico further notes that the case was brought before a federal district court judge in Denver and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Catholic preschools’ arguments were rejected; it was concluded that the state had the authority to deny the schools an exemption from the anti-discrimination requirements. As reported by CBS News, the appeals court further remarked that the Colorado program is a “model example of maintaining neutral and generally applicable nondiscrimination laws while nonetheless trying to accommodate the exercise of religious beliefs.”

The Supreme Court is set to hear the case in the fall. CBS News notes that the Trump administration has already expressed support of the Catholic plaintiffs; in an amicus curiae submitted by the Department of Justice in January, the administration argued that “Colorado cannot claim that allowing Catholic preschools to apply a preference based on Catholic teachings on sexual orientation and gender identity would uniquely undermine its law” and urged the Supreme Court to hear the case, noting that, “Granting review in this case would allow this Court to provide useful guidance on a subject that lower courts frequently confront.”