A unanimous ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court is a big deal — especially when it is in defense of religious liberty. We know that the justices have a variety of judicial philosophies, but remarkably every single one of them landed on the side of a faith-based organization effectively banned from serving foster children because it stood fast in the belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman.

Many advocates of liberty and children in need welcomed the ruling. For example, Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), co-chair of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, called it a “monumental win.” (Pray with Congressman Aderholt’s wife–watch this IFA webcast: Pray for America’s Leaders June 3.)

View Comments (7)

“Families and children in crisis need more support, not less,” he said. “And now we know that discrimination against faith-based agencies for holding to their deeply held religious and moral convictions is not only counter-productive, but strictly prohibited by the Court.”

The case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, began after a Philadelphia newspaper in 2018 drew attention to Catholic Social Services (CSS) and its commitment to marriage, which prevented it from directly helping prospective same-sex parents. The City Council was alarmed and soon the local Department of Human Services issued what Justice Samuel Alito called an “ultimatum.” Basically, CSS could comply with the city’s view on marriage and sexuality, or it could get frozen out of the system.

The faith-based ministry would not comply. It would not sacrifice its belief.

Now the Catholic Church had been serving Philadelphia’s children in need for more than two hundred years. And in court filings, the city actually admits that that CSS “has long been a point of light in the city’s foster care system” and “it has performed its contractual duties with distinction.” In addition, it’s noteworthy that CSS was willing to refer potential same-sex couples to other foster care agencies without religious objections.

But apparently none of that mattered as much as the ideology to city officials. So CSS — with the help of the Becket Fund — was forced to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend its rights.

Thankfully, the justices found it “plain” that the city had violated CSS’s First Amendment religious freedom “by putting it to the choice of curtailing its mission or approving relationships inconsistent with its beliefs.” And the court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, found the city’s arguments for why it should be able to discriminate against CSS to be wanting.

Roberts and most of his colleagues across the philosophical spectrum contended that Philadelphia’s rules were not truly generally applicable to all because they allowed the government to make exceptions. So why not make such an exception for this proven partner supporting children?

“Maximizing the number of foster families and minimizing liability are important goals, but the City fails to show that granting CSS an exception will put those goals at risk,” said Roberts. “If anything, including CSS in the program seems likely to increase, not reduce, the number of available foster parents.”

Because the court determined that the city’s rules were not generally applicable, the justices were able to formulate their reasoning without revisiting another court precedent in the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith that has been problematic for religious liberty advocates. This greatly disappointed Justice Samuel Alito who penned a long and robust concurring opinion, co-signed by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, making a case for why the court should have used this opportunity to overturn Smith.

“The City has been adamant about pressuring CSS to give in, and if the City wants to get around today’s decision, it can… and the parties will be back where they started,” Alito said.

And that is why, even as we celebrate this powerful victory, prayers are dearly needed. This is not the end of the story. It’s clear that at least five justices are interested in revisiting Smith… they’re just not sure what to do with it yet. But new cases — and some old ones — are coming. For example, just after the Fulton decision, Alliance Defending Freedom put out a call for prayer that the high court would agree in the next few days to hear the marriage-related case of Washington floral artist Baronnelle Stutzman during the court’s next term.

“After all, it’s not just her freedom on the line—it’s yours too,” said ADF.

Let’s pray that government leaders across the country will get the message of a unanimous court that religious liberty really is important and worthy of respect. And let’s pray for new cases soon coming that can build on this win honoring the faith and freedom of all Americans.

Aaron Mercer is a Contributing Writer with two decades of experience in Washington, D.C.’s public policy arena.