In its last term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions in important religious freedom cases, though neither directly clarified constitutional protections. The first ruled that a Colorado law allowing therapists to share some favored messages with clients but not others was a regulation of speech. The messages the state proscribed are often consistent with religious teachings and are sought by people of faith. The second clarified that Congress must clearly specify, not just imply, a means for vindicating a right under an important religious freedom statute.
In its upcoming term, the court has already agreed to decide three important religious freedom cases and may grant review of others.
On April 20, the court accepted a challenge, St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, to a Colorado policy that excludes some religious schools from a universal preschool grant program by requiring them to adopt policies at odds with their beliefs. The state says its policy does not infringe on religious freedom because some religious schools can still participate in the program, as long as they accept the state’s conditions. Sutherland filed an amicus brief in the case.
On June 29, the court agreed to decide a case, International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson, brought by parents challenging a Washington state policy not to notify parents that a child who has run away from home is in the state’s custody if that child is seeking gender transition. The challengers argue the law prevents them from parenting their children, but the state argues that parents cannot challenge the law unless their children are in state custody. Sutherland Institute filed an amicus brief in this case as well.
On June 30, the court granted a petition to consider Grand v. City of University Heights, a case in which a Jewish man sought to hold a religious gathering at his home and was then allegedly harassed and threatened by city officials. The issue the court will consider is whether the threat he has currently experienced justifies court consideration of his case even though the city’s determination on his use of property is not yet final. I have written more about this case earlier this summer.
These are the cases the court has already accepted. There is at least one more religious freedom case the court is considering accepting, Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic. It involves a religious organization that “seeks to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary on a plot of land that it acquired next to its church.” The local government approved the project, but neighbors sued. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that a law meant to protect the exercise of religion in land-use decisions would not be violated by a denial of permission to build the shrine “because petitioner could build a smaller shrine on a different plot.”
Other cases may arise through the next few months as lower court decisions are made that impact the religious practice of people of faith and religious organizations.
The court has done an admirable job in recent years in clarifying the constitutional obligations of governments in a way that protects the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. This term is likely to continue that vital work.
