Philidelphia Same-sex Foster Care Case Sees Unanimous SCOTUS Ruling
A unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the City of Philidelphia violated Catholic Social Services free exercise of religion by ending their foster care contract over same-sex couples policy.
The Supreme Court said Thursday that Philadelphia was wrong to end a contract to provide foster care services to a religious organization that refuses to work with same-sex couples.
All nine justices agreed with the outcome, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a majority of six in saying Philadelphia violated the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise of religion in ending a contract with Catholic Social Services to screen potential foster care parents.
“CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else,” Roberts wrote. “The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment.”
It was joined by conservative Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, as well as the court’s liberals, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Philadelphia city officials stopped the contract with Catholic Social Services after a 2018 article in the Philadelphia Inquirer described its policy against placing children with same-sex couples. They said the agency’s actions violated the city’s anti-discrimination laws.
The agency and several foster parents sued the city, saying the decision violated their First Amendment rights to religious freedom and free speech.
A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that the city was within its rights to end the contract and was not targeting the Catholic agency for its religious views. Instead, the court said, the city was insisting that those with whom it does business agree with its nondiscrimination policy.
Catholic Social Services, which has provided foster care services for decades, said the city’s decision forces it either to violate religious views about marriage or forgo providing the kind of services essential to its mission.
It noted that it had never been approached by a same-sex couple, and that other city contractors were happy to work with those couples.
The case is Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.
Read the full SCOTUS decision on the Philidelphia same-sex foster care ruling here:
Same-sex Foster Care
Of particular interest to me is this paragraph from page 5 (C.J. Roberts’ majority opinion):
That is a very interesting and broadly-sweeping way for the Chief to characterize the core holding of Masterpiece Cakeshop, which in my opinion had a more limited holding (I’d have said “A particularized showing of religious bias tangibly affecting the outcome of an administrative proceeding entitles the harmed party to a neutral re-hearing.”).
While that’s part of Roberts’ primary reasoning (he has to get this case out of Smith v. Oregon Employment Division‘s buttressing of “laws of general applicability” in order to reach the result he does) it’s interesting that he thereafter notes another way, specifically underinclusiveness as demonstrated in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah‘s prohibition of animal sacrifice in religious rituals on the basis of health concerns for disposal of the carcasses (hunters, grocery stores, and restaurants were not similarly-regulated). Had he relied strictly on the underinclusiveness theory of Lukumi Babalu Aye he need not have addressed Masterpiece Cakeshop at all to indicate that what Philadelphia was actually doing wasn’t a “generally-applicable” rule, but rather something aimed specifically at the Catholic Church (and possibly several other Christian charities).Report
So one might say that Roberts is proposing a theory of structural bigotry, embedded in laws that are facially neutral but have disparate impact?Report
One might say that, and if one did I probably wouldn’t take issue with it. I suppose the Chief might. But he needs to let his opinions do his speaking for him and at least he does that much right. (Unlike certain of his Brethren.)
What I’m saying is this is how bad law propogates itself into more bad law and becomes a bad cultural norm if not swiftly corrected. Plessy v. Ferguson wasn’t particularly
goodadmirable law when it was decided, but the stuffy railroad lawyers who got appointed to SCOTUS back in those days didn’t ever go back and revisit it and soon enough they came to believe it was the norm, the way things ought to be. When we finally got Brown v. Board of Education eighty years later… well, we still haven’t heard the last echo of the howls of anguish about it.ReportThe concept of disparate impact is at it’s best when the gov is targeting protected groups in all but name (as what presumably happened here, the gov was unhappy with Catholic charities).
The concept is at it’s worst when it’s social engineering. I.e. it’s racist to hire minority engineers according to their percentage of application pool as opposed to the percentage of population, it’s racist to arrest more black murderers than white murderers.Report
Right, and one of the best applications is something like Stop & Frisk, which targeted young black men, and produced all those eye-popping crime stats which were then used to justify further disparate impacts.
This is the heart of CRT, which shows how seemingly neutral structures are actually created out of bigoted premises.Report
Are you beginning to understand why some people might be skeptical about new gun control laws?
I’m not asking if *YOU* are skeptical about them, mind.
Just asking if you’ve had the “holy cow… some people might think that there would be disparate impact when it came to house to house searches for guns! And they’re not necessarily being dishonest for thinking that!” thought.Report
Can you understand why some people might think that shoplifting laws have a disparate impact as well?Report
Absolutely!
Also: Food deserts.
(I’ll note that you didn’t answer my question, though. Could you answer it please?)Report
Your answer shows why I understand it, but regard it as illogical.
What you are doing, consciously or not, is arguing in support of Critical Race Theory.
That all laws will have a disparate impact because of ingrained racism on the part of those who enforce the laws.Report
So you do understand how someone might say “holy cow… some people might think that there would be disparate impact when it came to house to house searches for guns! And they’re not necessarily being dishonest for thinking that!”
But they’re being illogical?
Where is the bad logic?Report
Because it doesn’t do any work to show why gun laws, as opposed to all laws everywhere, must be rejected.Report
I see the bad logic now.Report
If we count corpses, or just shootings, then we have a very violent sub-culture. This sub-culture is responsible for lots of suffering in the minority community.
How to deal with and/or target that sub-culture without targeting/damaging the community which hosts them is an ongoing issue.
Anything we do about this is going to have a disparate impact.
For example arresting people only according their percentage of the population will be ignoring lots of minority victims and suffering.Report
If we count molested children, we are dealing with a very pathological and hyper-sexualized religious institution.
If we count spousal abuse, we must realize that rural white men without a college degree constitute a very violent subculture.
If we count monetary theft, we have to admit that there is something terribly wrong with our corporate culture.
We can do this all day.Report
I’m not sure that “whataboutism” in response to Proposition P really negates Proposition P.
It’s like saying Oh, Proposition P??? PROPOSITION Q!!! PROPOSITION Q!!! HOW COME YOU’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT PROPOSITION Q!!!
Sure. We can talk about Proposition Q.
We probably should!
Is Proposition P true?Report
Is it your contention that the black-white gap in crime statistics is purely an artifact of racist policing practices?Report
Not purely.Report
Would the crime statistics still be “eye-popping,” as you put it, if not for racist policing practices?Report
Well for example, we know that white people and black people consume drugs at about the same rates, yet black people are arrested for them are rates far exceeding whites.
So, no the raw data of crime statistics would look far different without racism.Report
You’re assuming “racism” is the primary driver. If that’s wrong, then we go out, make sure the officers aren’t racist, and fix nothing.
Here’s a link agreeing with your facts but doing more into the why. https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/06/19/race-drugs-and-law-enforcement-united-states#_B._Incarceration
Bias absolutely plays a role, but cultural differences also plays a huge role.
(from link) In most large cities, the police focus their attention on where they see conspicuous drug use-street-corner drug sales-and where they get the most complaints. Conspicuous drug use is generally in your low-income neighborhoods that generally turn out to be your minority neighborhoods . . . .
It’s easier for police to make an arrest when you have people selling drugs on the street corner than those who are [selling or buying drugs] in the suburbs or in office buildings. The end result is that more blacks are arrested than whites because of the relative ease in making those arrests.[60] (end quote).
The easy way to avoid “bias” in the outcomes would be to ignore black dealers openly selling drugs in black areas. IMHO it would be hard to do that without also being biased.Report
So the cops are looking for drugs under the lamppost, because the light’s better?
This is actually a widespread observance, that the police find crime where it is easiest, not where it occurs.
Which is why for example, wage theft accounts for more theft than shoplifting and armed robbery combined, but is prosecuted almost never, because its easier to apprehend a guy stealing a can of soda, than the store manager who refuses to give the clerk his legally mandated break.
All of which is evidence that the statistics on crime should never be taken at face value.Report
Unless it’s something really clear like counting corpses and/or gunshots wounds.
The thing about dead bodies is we count them all, not just “where it is easiest”.
My expectation is this is lumping together things that shouldn’t be for the sake of making “pay attention to me/this” claims.
For example one such claim counts consensual jobs which the min wage isn’t paid.
Stealing tips hits the radar as criminal and worthy of police attention; Bankruptcy less so.Report
Them min/maxing time+effort to maximize their return (i.e. the number of criminals arrested) doesn’t seem like a problem. Nor do I see a potential solution other than ending the WoD which we should.
Now a rarely mentioned (systemic difference?) problem is the difference between a good well-prepared defense lawyer and one who isn’t is huge. Presumably the level of the lawyer reflects the wealth of the criminal. OJ is an extreme example.
My impression is lots of places have issues with Public Defenders offices being under resourced to the point where justice is greatly affected.
Weird that this doesn’t get more mention. It hits the radar as something our big liberal cities could do something about if they cared.Report
You’re inadvertently describing a view of policing which is held by its fiercest critics.
Which is that policing is really less about fighting crime than simply controlling social hierarchies.
The example is where the police arrest the prostitute but let the john off with a wink.
The goal isn’t to prevent the crime of prostitution, but merely to reinforce the social hierarchy of who matters and who doesn’t, who is easy to oppress and who isn’t.Report
Lions are not “enforcing social hierarchies” when they attack the weakest member of the herd. They’re just being efficient and min/maxing.
We want the police to use their resources effectively, and that means arresting dealers who are openly selling on street corners in plain view of the public.
Now I think there is a strong argument for decriminalizing sex work and the WoD. The police are the enforcers of society’s moral virtue signaling. That doesn’t go well since the laws not only aren’t written well, but can’t be.
And you can add “gun control” to the prohibition moral virtue signaling list. Probably religion control too (this thread) although that comes up less in the USA.Report
We want the police arresting the street dealers (because they’re easy) and ignoring the drug kingpin (because that’s hard)?Report
Short answer is “yes”.
Long answer is “if arresting the drug kingpin means leaving lots and lots of drug dealers openly selling and also ignoring the constant complaints from the public, then definitely ‘yes'”.
If that’s counter intuitive, keep in mind the “drug kingpin” in the US is just as replaceable as his minions.
The typical counter argument is “we should arrest both”, but that assumes infinite resources and I’m assuming resource limits.
Now the real counter argument is “not only is the kingpin 100x as hard to catch but he’s doing 10,000x as much damage to society”, but that’s mostly a thing where drug kingpins get strong enough to challenge governments.Report
Imagine a religion that thinks, oh, let’s make something crazy up, that non-believers are all going to hell. It could very logically refused to place children in families that don’t share its religion. I’d think that breaking a contract over that would be “restrictive practices because of their religious nature. “Report
What is most interesting to me is that when Employment Division was announced as a decision, it was the object of bipartisan hatred. Everyone hated it and it was one of the few times Congress passed legislation to send a shot to the Supreme Court and tell them “think again.” The Civil Rights Act of 1991 was another example of Congress telling the Supreme Court to “think again”, so much so that there is a case where the Supreme Court mentions that Act and writes “Congress told us we got it wrong.”
Now it is a decision liberals want to keep.Report
I see it a sign of a time that our politics were healthier. There should be interplay between the branches of government of that nature. It’s certainly better than bury things on omnibus bills and reconciliation then try to convince the court to do the policy-making dirty work.Report
I thought Smith was wrong at the time, but when I tried to cobble together some sort of intelligible principle behind the pre-Smith decisions and create an alternative standard, all I could come up with was either: cute, non-threatening religions get accommodated if they’re too small to have a major impact (Wisconsin v. Yoder) or it’s no big deal, what the Hell? (just about every other case of the relatively few that plaintiff’s won) I came around on Smith and think RFRA and RLUIPA bad ideas.
Now, the heirs of St. Nino are spoiling for a fight to overrule Smith and replace it with, basically, a free pass for religious institutions and believers to disobey laws they don’t like, looking for a case that will give them their chance.
For the moment, John Roberts has finessed them. John Roberts, protecting conservatives from themselves since 2005.Report