Opinion: People Of Faith Must Educate Themselves On The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia left some conservatives desiring more protection for religious freedom, and left LGBTQ activists seeing potential for unfair treatment in the future. While the Supreme Court ruling ultimately won’t alter much, its should encourage people of faith to take more legal action when facing discrimination in the future.

The recent Fulton v. City of Philadelphia case reviewed by the Court looked at the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment and notably did not go further. The most important lasting outcome of the case should be that it encourages religious Americans to better understand the opinions of the Justices in order to know what actions they ought to take in the future to maintain their rights.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Fulton case focused on the foster care system in the city of Philadelphia and a religious organization with which the city does business — Catholic Social Services (CSS). 

CSS held that it was against the religious beliefs of its organization to place foster children in homes with homosexual couples, as well as couples living together unmarried — a fact most media outlets ignored.

The Court stated, “CSS believes that ‘marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman,’” adding that because “the agency understands the certification of prospective foster families to be an endorsement of their relationships, it will not certify unmarried couples—regardless of their sexual orientation—or same-sex married couples.”

“CSS does not object to certifying gay or lesbian individuals as single foster parents or to placing gay and lesbian children. No same-sex couple has ever sought certification from CSS. If one did, CSS would direct the couple to one of the more than 20 other agencies in the City, all of which currently certify same-sex couples. For over 50 years, CSS successfully contracted with the City to provide foster care services while holding to these beliefs,” it added. 

After an inquiry and investigation into CSS, the city of Philadelphia eventually decided that “it would not enter a full foster care contract with CSS in the future unless the agency agreed to certify same-sex couples,” saying that “the refusal of CSS to certify same-sex couples violated a non-discrimination provision in its contract with the City as well as the non-discrimination requirements of the citywide Fair Practices Ordinance.”

Alongside three foster parents related to the agency, CSS filed suit against the city, the Department, and the Commission, with the case eventually going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

In the Court’s majority opinion, delivered by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., it was decided that 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.”

The city’s contract was under “strict scrutiny” because it allowed for some exceptions to its rule. It did not pass “strict scrutiny” because it was not affording that exception to CSS. 

The argument of the case centered on, along with other cases, a previous 1990 decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, a precedent that Justice Samuel Alito took issue with in his opinion. “Smith held that a generally applicable law satisfies the First Amendment if ‘prohibiting the exercise of religion . . . is not the object of the [government action] but merely the incidental effect of’ its operation,” Alito’s opinion explained.

Justice Alito agreed with the Fulton decision this week, but felt that it did not do enough, writing, “This decision might as well be written on the dissolving paper sold in magic shops. The City has been adamant about pressuring CSS to give in, and if the City wants to get around today’s decision, it can simply eliminate the never-used exemption power.”

Alito argued that the Smith decision should be reconsidered and added that it “is high time for us to take a fresh look at what the Free Exercise Clause demands.” Alito went on to describe the problems that have arisen out of the Smith ruling, noting that cases after Smith “have also struggled with the task of determining whether a purportedly neutral rule ‘targets’ religious exercise or has the restriction of religious exercise as its ‘object.’”

Alito said that Smith should be overruled, and noted that if it were, then what should replace it is the legal standard that it superseded: “A law that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise can be sustained only if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.”

Those who practice religion might celebrate that the High Court came to this unanimous decision in siding with the Catholic organization. However, they should be careful before rejoicing. 

While this decision would allow for CSS to continue to contract with the city in order to carry out its foster care services, it is concerning that the ruling does not offer protection for future cases wherein religious groups may speak out about covert discrimination from the government. 

In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the “government contract at issue” for the city of Philadelphia is beholden to “strict scrutiny” because it allows for “individualized exemptions from its nondiscrimination rule.” Since the city could not “satisfy strict scrutiny,” all of the Justices sided with the religious organization. 

This begs the question, however, of what would happen if the government did not have the “exemption” phrasing in its contract. Would this mean that the city could indiscriminately forbid certain groups from doing business simply because of their religious beliefs? 

People who practice a religious faith should continue to ask these questions and ensure that they speak up and take action when discrimination occurs in order to eventually satisfy a decision that would put the Supreme Court in a position in which it might rule in favor of providing allowances to religious individuals and groups in full support of the First Amendment. 

The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases