The intersection of discrimination law and religious exemption recently garnered significant attention at the U.S. Supreme Court, with two distinct matters highlighting the complexities of this contested area.
Case One: Religious Organizations and Foster Care Policy
In one development, the Supreme Court granted review to a legal challenge concerning Philadelphia’s foster care policy. The case involves Catholic Social Services (CSS), which was excluded from the city’s foster care system due to its refusal to place children with same-sex couples.
It is important to note that this challenge is directed against a local ordinance enacted by Philadelphia. This places the case on a different legal foundation than if the challenge were, for instance, against federal regulations seeking to impose a uniform standard nationally. For example, the Obama-era regulations (which the Department of Health and Human Services has since proposed to rescind) attempted to compel states and cities to adopt policies similar to Philadelphia’s. In that specific federal episode, proponents of a liberal viewpoint sought to impose a uniform, nationwide standard. Conversely, in the current Philadelphia case, it is certain conservative religious organizations that are seeking the imposition of a different standard that would grant them an exemption from the local law.
Case Two: Accommodation of Religious Beliefs in Employment
In the second matter, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch, issued a call for the Court to revisit a significant 1977 precedent. This precedent interpreted federal employment discrimination law in such a way that it does not require employers to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs if doing so would result in more than a de minimis cost or disruption to the business.
Historically, the push for a less employer-favorable standard—one that required greater accommodation—often came from liberal advocates. However, over the years, there has been a notable shift, with many advocates across the liberal-conservative spectrum effectively exchanging positions on the desired level of religious accommodation in the workplace.
