Supreme Court will decide if preschools that decline children of same-sex couples may receive state funding [View all]

Source: CNN

Politics
Supreme Court will decide if preschools that decline children of same-sex couples may receive state funding

By John Fritze
Updated 1 hr 15 min ago


The sun rises above a facade of the US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC, on March 31, 2026. Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to review a Colorado law that requires preschools receiving taxpayer money to enroll children of same-sex couples -- setting up an important First Amendment showdown at the high court that pits religious rights against LGBTQ families.

At the same time, the court declined to hear another high-profile case involving a Massachusetts couple who said their school began treating their middle school child as genderqueer against their wishes.

After years of allowing religious schools in some settings to receive state funding alongside secular schools, the 6-3 conservative court will now decide what to do when school leaders assert that anti-discrimination laws intended to protect gay and transgender people conflict with their religious beliefs. The appeal from the Catholic parishes will likely be heard in the fall and a decision is likely sometime next year.

Colorado enacted a ballot provision in 2020 that provides state funding for a universal preschool program, allowing both public and private schools to take part. The state program includes 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.

{snip}

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/20/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-preschool

---

******
Chris Geidner
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

BREAKING: The Supreme Court takes up two new cases for next term, including a case over Colorado's exclusion of Catholic preschools from public funding.

The case specifically [raised] a question the court has circled around for years: Whether 1990's Employment Division v. Smith should be overruled.

25-581
25-5343
CERTIORARI GRANTED
ST. MARY CATHOLIC PARISH, ET AL. V. ROY, LISA, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition.
BEAIRD, KENDRICK J. V. UNITED STATES
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma
2
pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether Stinson v.
United States, 508 U. S. 36 (1993), still correctly states the
rule for the deference that courts must give the commentary to
the Sentencing Guidelines.
ALT
9:41 AM · Apr 20, 2026
******

BREAKING: The Supreme Court takes up two new cases for next term, including a case over Colorado’s exclusion of Catholic preschools from public funding.

The case specifically raises a question the court has circled around for years: Whether 1990’s Employment Division v. Smith should be overruled.

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-04-20T13:41:55.222Z

******
Chris Geidner
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

Here is the full orders list: www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042026zor_h315.pdf
www.supremecourt.gov
9:44 AM · Apr 20, 2026
******

Here is the full orders list: www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-04-20T13:44:45.428Z

******
Chris Geidner
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

Sorry for the confusion: I had meant the case "raised" that question, not "raises," because the Supreme Court cut the question -- and had intended to follow up with this to show that they cut that (but got distracted with arguments).

The court still is circling, was my point.

Apologies again!

The questions presented are:
1. Whether proving a lack of general applicability under Employment Division v. Smith requires showing unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct.
ii
2. Whether Carson v. Makin displaces the rule of Employment Division v. Smith only when the government explicitly excludes religious people and institutions.
3. Whether Employment Dwision v. Smith should be overruled.
ALT
10:29 AM · Apr 20, 2026
******

Sorry for the confusion: I had meant the case “raised” that question, not “raises,” because the Supreme Court cut the question — and had intended to follow up with this to show that they cut that (but got distracted with arguments).

The court still is circling, was my point.

Apologies again!

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-04-20T14:29:45.367Z

******
Chris Geidner
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

Here's the cert petition, in which the Becket Fund is representing the parishes and others who sued over the exclusion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-581/384425/20251113161200771_No.-__Petition%20for%20a%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-581/384425/20251113161200771_No.-__Petition%20for%20a%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari.pdf
www.supremecourt.gov
10:43 AM · Apr 20, 2026
******

Here’s the cert petition, in which the Becket Fund is representing the parishes and others who sued over the exclusion: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-04-20T14:43:10.101Z

******
Erik of Portland, Governmental Lawlessness Disliker
‪@erikgunderson.bsky.social‬

Employment Division v. Smith was Scalia's best opinion. You don't get to escape the law simply because you are religious.
11:05 AM · Apr 20, 2026
******

Employment Division v. Smith was Scalia's best opinion. You don't get to escape the law simply because you are religious.

— Erik of Portland, Governmental Lawlessness Disliker (@erikgunderson.bsky.social) 2026-04-20T15:05:19.370Z