SCOTUS Grills CO For Excluding Christians From School Program
Teh U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday pressed Colorado over a “universal” preschool program that excludes religious schools because they will not sign a state non‑discrimination agreement. The dispute, argued in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, centers on whether Colorado’s requirement forces Catholic schools to violate their religious teachings on marriage and biological sex and whether the Court’s 1990 Employment Division v.Smith precedent – which allows generally applicable laws without religious exemptions – governs the outcome.
St. Mary’s attorney Nicholas Reaves argued the Catholic schools exist to pass on their faith and require families to support church teachings. He told the justices Colorado treats secular accommodations flexibly but refuses to grant a religious exemption, despite the program’s expansive capacity and the claim that allowing catholic preschools to participate would create, not reduce, spots for families.
Several liberal justices pushed back. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson warned against creating a special rule that would treat religious people differently under generally applicable laws. Justice Sonia Sotomayor characterized the schools’ refusal as a voluntary choice that results in their exclusion and suggested the dispute boils down to the schools rejecting children because of parents’ sexual orientation – a point Justice brett Kavanaugh disputed, saying the schools require adherence to all Catholic teachings, not only those about marriage or sex.
Colorado’s deputy solicitor general, Helen Norton, faced tough questioning from conservative justices. Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett highlighted past conflicts between Colorado and religious claimants and asked whether Colorado’s policy was effectively designed to bar religious schools. Alito presented a hypothetical about banning head coverings to probe whether a facially neutral rule that burdens religious practice would pass under Smith; Norton conceded a neutral, generally applicable rule would not trigger heightened scrutiny. Kavanaugh also questioned Colorado’s apparent allowance of other kinds of school preferences while excluding explicitly religious schools.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch seemed skeptical of Colorado’s stance, and chief Justice John Roberts challenged both sides on the general applicability issue. The Court did not issue a ruling; a decision in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy is expected later in the 2026 term.
Byline: Shawn Fleetwood, staff writer for The Federalist, contributed the original report.
The U.S. Supreme Court grilled the state of Colorado on Tuesday for administering a “universal” preschool program that excludes Christian schools.
The issue was the focus of the high court’s oral arguments in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, in which several Catholic parents and schools allege that the state’s requirement that schools sign a “non-discrimination” agreement to access the program violates their First Amendment rights and religious views on marriage and biological sex. The case also deals with the court’s 1990 Employment Division v. Smith decision, which held that the First Amendment does not require religious exemptions for laws considered to be “generally applicable” (that is, laws which apply uniformly to everyone and are not tailored toward a specific group, individuals, or conduct).
Kicking off Tuesday’s arguments was St. Mary attorney Nicholas Reaves. He noted how the Catholic schools “exist to pass on the faith to the next generation,” and that, in order “to do this, they ask all families who enroll to be open to and supportive of the church’s teachings” — including those on marriage and sex. Reaves further contended that the lower courts misapplied Smith and that the Centennial State “has flexibly interpreted the [non-discrimination] mandate to accommodate important secular interests, but it’s called the same law a hard limit when petitioners sought a religious accommodation.”
“Colorado has discretion … to permit preschools to organize around ‘specific competencies or interests’ and to serve ‘specific communities.’ Yet it has refused to extend that flexible treatment to [Catholic] petitioners,” Reaves said. “Letting families use universal preschool funding at Catholic schools won’t take away a single seat from the over 2,000 preschools already participating in the program. In fact, letting Catholic schools in will create more seats for everyone, even for families who disagree with Catholic teachings.”
Reaves’ arguments faced immediate pushback from the court’s Democrat appointees.
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that Reaves is asking SCOTUS to go “beyond” its existing precedents on the issue to produce a ruling that creates a “special rule” for religious Americans that would, according to Kagan, treat them “differently from other people” under generally applicable laws “because of their religious faith.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, on the other hand, seemingly defended Colorado by claiming that the Catholic schools’ decision to forgo signing the agreement at odds with their faith and subsequent inability to access the preschool program is a choice of their own making.
Sotomayor also attempted to sum up the case’s “bottom line” as being an effort among the Catholic schools to “reject … child[ren] merely because their parents are homosexual.” That point was later refuted by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who underscored that the Catholic schools are requiring interested students and parents to abide by all the Catholic Church’s teachings, not solely those related to marriage and sex.
On the flip side, Colorado Deputy Solicitor General Helen Norton endured her fair share of tough questions from many of the court’s Republican appointees.
In questioning Norton, Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett both referenced Colorado’s rampant history of hostility toward Christians in the state. This included mentions of recent Supreme Court decisions rejecting the Democrat-led state’s efforts to force a Christian baker to design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, browbeat a Christian web designer into making a wedding webpage for a same-sex couple, and stop Christian therapists from helping kids confused by gender ideology.
“What should we make of all this?” Alito asked of the Centennial State’s anti-Christian lawfare.
To further underscore the absurdity of the existing general applicability standard and its conflict with religious exercise, Alito asked Norton whether a hypothetical Colorado rule for its preschools that bans teachers from wearing head coverings — which would conflict with certain religions and their practices — would be permissible. Norton admitted that if the state determined the rule is “neutral” and “generally applicable,” it would not warrant a heightened standard of review under the First Amendment and therefore be allowed.
Meanwhile, Barrett questioned Colorado on its decision to adopt a condition for its preschool program that the state “know[s] that [the Catholic] schools will be unable to agree to.”
In addition to reaffirming the country’s longstanding principle that religious Americans’ rights are to be “respected,” Kavanaugh similarly grilled Norton on Colorado’s preschool program rules. He notably pressed the deputy solicitor general regarding “all the other preferences that are in Colorado law” that seemingly permit preschools to discriminate on characteristics other than religion.
“For example, I notice one preference that’s allowed, schools are allowed to have preference for parents who will be more involved in the school. … That almost inherently discriminates against single-parent families, inherently discriminates against families with two-income parents in the real world,” Kavanaugh said. “[Y]ou can have a vegetarian school, but you can’t have a Catholic school; you can’t have a Jewish school. … How do you respond to those concerns?”
Justice Kavanaugh tells Colorado that, even in light of the Supreme Court’s past Obergefell decision, religious Americans’ rights are to be “respected.” pic.twitter.com/mufLioHXqP
— Shawn Fleetwood (@ShawnFleetwood) November 3, 2026
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch also appeared skeptical of Colorado’s arguments. Chief Justice John Roberts similarly posed tough questions for Norton but also pressed Reaves on the general applicability principle he asked the court to adopt.
A decision in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy is not expected to be released until later in the Supreme Court’s 2026 term.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. His work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
