CNBC reports:
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Wednesday seemed prepared to rule in favor of a Roman Catholic adoption agency in Philadelphia that argued that it is entitled to discriminate against potential foster parents on the basis of sexual orientation.
Arguments in the case, known as Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, No. 19-123, concluded around 12 p.m. ET, as the votes from the previous night’s election between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden continued to be tabulated.
The case was the first major dispute to come before Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed to the court late last month. Barrett’s views on LGBT rights and religion came under heavy scrutiny during her Senate confirmation process.
Lori Windham, attorney with Becket Law, arguing on behalf of Catholic Social Services:
“The City has no compelling reason for excluding Catholic Social Services, which has exercised its faith by serving at-risk children in Philadelphia for two centuries.”
— Chris Johnson (@chrisjohnson82) November 4, 2020
Justice Roberts starts off the bat by asking shouldn’t Philadelphia “get the strike the balance” for its programs.
Windham says that analysis shouldn’t control here:
“Phildelphia has said that CSS is an independent contractor and is not an employee or agent of the city.”
— Chris Johnson (@chrisjohnson82) November 4, 2020
Justice Breyer asks why can’t CSS just say they’re opposed to same-sex couples, but still evaluate them on a neutral way.
Windham says that would be “a violation of religious belief” for foster case.
“A home study is essentially a validation of the relationships in the home.”
— Chris Johnson (@chrisjohnson82) November 4, 2020
Gorsuch asks about impact of Philadelphia now saying LGBTQ ordinance is binding as opposed to contract.
Windham says that’s “important fact.”
“What the city is saying…is that it is illegal for you do to this work in the city of Philadelphia according to your religious belief.”— Chris Johnson (@chrisjohnson82) November 4, 2020
Kavanaugh points out Philadelphia contracts with 30 agencies, no LGBTQ couples have to come to CSS & CSS would refer LGBTQ couple to other agency.
“That’s all correct,” Windham says, & shows “CSS is not going to prevent any same-sex couples from being able to be foster parents.”
— Chris Johnson (@chrisjohnson82) November 4, 2020
Justice Barrett asks if SCOTUS lets CSS reject same-sex couples, must it also allow it to reject interracial couples.
“No,” Windham replies, “This court has been in Loving and other case the government has a compelling interest in [eliminating] racial discrimination.”
— Chris Johnson (@chrisjohnson82) November 4, 2020
Breyer gets irate over idea SCOTUS issuing opinion saying anti-LGBTQ discrimination is different from racial discrimination.
“We should write an opinion which says discrimination on the basis of race constitutionally speaking is different from…on the basis of homosexuality?”
— Chris Johnson (@chrisjohnson82) November 4, 2020
Sotomayor rejects notion SCOTUS recognized racial discrimination is different from other discrimination.
“I’ve always thought that a compelling state that motivated our holdings in racial discrimination cases” was state interest in diminishing the stigma against certain groups.
— Chris Johnson (@chrisjohnson82) November 4, 2020
Sotomayor also dismisses fact no LGBTQ couple has to come to CSS for foster services, pointing out that’s because CSS “is saying them, ‘I won’t certify you.'”
— Chris Johnson (@chrisjohnson82) November 4, 2020
Justice Thomas: “Don’t you think it’s in the best interest of the child to also have a pool that is beneficial to the child?”
The implication is having an LGBTQ couple as parents would not be beneficial to a child in foster care.
— Chris Johnson (@chrisjohnson82) November 4, 2020
Kavanaugh points out Obergefell says religious objections to same-sex marriage are valid, gov’t should try to find “win-win” solutions.
“Seems like Philadelphia created a clash…and was looking for a fight, and has brought that serious controversy…all the way to [SCOTUS].”
— Chris Johnson (@chrisjohnson82) November 4, 2020
Neal Katyal, lawyer for Philadelphia, says he “couldn’t profoundly disagree more” with Kavanaugh city was trying to pick a fight.
“We certainly wouldn’t rush this case to the Supreme Court. Indeed, we want it in…courts below.”
— Chris Johnson (@chrisjohnson82) November 4, 2020
Conservative justices on SCOTUS — based on their animosity toward non-discrimination rules for religious institutions — seemed to poised to rule to allow CSS to reject LGBTQ couples.
But I have to say Roberts and Gorsuch were keeping their cards close to their chest. Who knows?
— Chris Johnson (@chrisjohnson82) November 4, 2020