At Urging of the Wagner Center, U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Religious Liberty Case Involving Christian Preschool —

Washington, D.C. — In a significant development for religious liberty and constitutional law, the United States Supreme Court on Monday granted certiorari in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, agreeing to review a case that raises fundamental questions about the First Amendment’s protection of religious institutions in the public square. A number of constitutional attorneys, including Prof. William Wagner, WFFC Distinguished Chair for Faith & Freedom at Spring Arbor University, filed a brief urging the Court to accept this important First Amendment case. The parties to this brief included the Wagner Center, EDChoice, Inc., and the Defense of Freedom Institute. Wagner commended the legal advocacy of the lawyers for these organizations.

At the center of the dispute is a Catholic preschool in Littleton, Colorado, excluded from the state’s “universal preschool” program because it declined to comply with regulatory conditions that conflict with its religious mission—specifically, requirements related to admissions policies involving their sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality.

The case now presents the Court with an opportunity to clarify—and potentially reshape—the constitutional framework governing when and how religious institutions may participate in public benefit programs without compromising their faith commitments.

A Clash Between Government Conditions and Religious Conviction

St. Mary Catholic Parish argues that Colorado’s exclusion of its preschool constitutes religious discrimination in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The state conditioned participation in its publicly funded preschool program on adherence to nondiscrimination rules that, according to the parish, would force it to act contrary to its sincerely held religious beliefs about human identity, family, and moral teaching.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected the parish’s claims, relying on the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith. In Smith, the Court held that neutral, generally applicable laws typically do not violate the Free Exercise Clause—even if they incidentally burden religious practice.

The Tenth Circuit concluded that Colorado’s rules were neutral and broadly applied, and therefore constitutional under Smith.

A Potential Turning Point in Free Exercise Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy signals a willingness to revisit key aspects of its Free Exercise doctrine—particularly the continuing viability and scope of Smith.

The case arrives against the backdrop of more recent decisions, such as Carson v. Makin (2022), in which the Court held that Maine could not exclude religious schools from a public tuition assistance program simply because they were religious. That decision emphasized that once a state provides a public benefit, it cannot disqualify recipients solely on the basis of their religious character or exercise.

St. Mary now raises deeper questions:

• Must a religious institution prove that the government has granted explicit exemptions to comparable secular actors in order to show a lack of “general applicability”?

• Does Carson signal a broader shift away from Smith, even when religious exclusion is not explicit but arises through regulatory conditions?

A Broader Worldview Conflict

At its core, St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy reflects a deeper tension between competing worldviews.

On one hand is a constitutional vision rooted in the recognition of unalienable rights—endowed by a Creator and therefore beyond the reach of governmental redefinition. Within this framework, religious liberty is not a mere policy preference but a foundational principle that safeguards the ability of individuals and institutions to live consistently with truth as they understand it.

On the other hand is an expanding regulatory state that increasingly conditions participation in public life on adherence to evolving norms concerning identity, sexuality, and equality—norms that may conflict with longstanding religious teachings.

The Court’s resolution of this case will likely shape how these competing visions are reconciled in American law.

What Lies Ahead

By granting certiorari, the Supreme Court has positioned St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy as a potentially landmark case in its upcoming term. Observers anticipate that the Court may use this opportunity to clarify the boundaries of Smith, expand the reach of its more recent Free Exercise decisions, or even reconsider the doctrinal framework altogether.

For religious institutions across the nation, the stakes are considerable. The outcome will influence whether they may participate in public programs without compromising their identity—and whether the Constitution continues to provide meaningful protection for the free exercise of religion in an increasingly pluralistic society.

A decision is expected by the end of the Court’s term.