Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments Today In Catholic Foster Care Agency Case

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In the case,  the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld against 1st Amendment challenges the City of Philadelphia's policy of refusing to contract with foster care agencies, such as Catholic Social Services, that will not place children with same-sex married couples. (See prior posting.) Links to pleadings and briefs filed in the case, as well as to commentary on the case, are at the SCOTUSblog case page. When the transcript and/or recording of oral arguments become available later today, I will post a link to them.

UPDATE: Here is the transcript of the oral arguments, and here is the audio of the arguments.

Hypothetical Religious Objections On LGBTQ Issues Cannot Disqualify Foster Parents

In Blais v. Hunter, (ED WA, Oct. 8, 2020), a Washington federal district court held that the Washington Department of Children, Youth and Families cannot use its policy to protect LGBTQ+ foster children as the sole determining factor in rejecting a foster family that expresses sincere religious beliefs that would preclude them from supporting gender transition in hypothetical future situation.  Plaintiffs in the case were a Seventh Day Adventist family that wanted to care for their great-granddaughter who might be removed from her home. The court concluded that the Department’s policies “operate as a religious gerrymander and are thus not neutral as applied to the Blaises and others similarly situated.” [Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Challenge To Anti-Discrimination Exemptions For Foster Care Agencies Moves Ahead

 In Maddonna v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D SC, Aug. 10, 2020), a South Carolina federal district court allowed a prospective foster parent to challenge state and federal exemptions from anti-discrimination requirements that allowed a Catholic foster care agency to work only with families that share the agency's religious beliefs.  Even though the case had once been dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of standing (see prior posting), the court now found standing.  The court then refused to dismiss plaintiff's Establishment Clause claim, saying in part:

Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Defendants conveyed a message endorsing religion by allowing state-licensed, government-funded CPAs to reject prospective foster parents based on religious criteria....

“[T]he core rationale underlying the Establishment Clause is preventing ‘a fusion of governmental and religious functions[.]’” ... According to the Complaint, the system which Defendants’ “accommodations” have created “does not by its terms require that [religiously affiliated CPAs’] power be used in a religiously neutral way.” ... Rather, under the Executive Order and the HHS Waiver, religiously-affiliated CPAs’ power to accept or reject prospective foster parents is completely “standardless, calling for no reasons, findings, or reasoned conclusions.”

Christian Post reports on the decision.

British Court Says Foster Care Agency Can Serve Only Christians, But Cannot Exclude Gay Couples

In Cornerstone (North East) Adoption and Fostering Service Ltd. v. Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills, (England & Wales High Ct., July 7, 2020), a British judge ruled that a Christian adoption and foster care agency does not violate the Equality Act or the European Convention on Human Rights by recruiting only Evangelical Christians to be foster carers. However it does violate both the Equality Act and the Convention when it refuses to place children with Evangelical Christian same-sex couples. Christian News reports on the decision.

Executive Order Encourages State Cooperation With Faith-Based Child Welfare Agencies

President Trump yesterday signed an Executive Order (full text) on Strengthening the Child Welfare System. The Order encourages "close partnerships between State agencies and nongovernmental organizations, including public, private, faith-based, and community groups." (HHS press release).

Court Rejects Claim of Retaliation Because of Foster Parents' Religious Beliefs

In Lasche v. State of New Jersey, (D NJ, June 4, 2020), a New Jersey federal district court rejected claims by a couple who were formerly foster parents that the state acted unconstitutionally when it removed a foster child from their home and when it suspended their foster care license. Plaintiffs claim that they were retaliated against because of their religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, or because they shared their religious belief with their child. The court found insufficient allegations to support an equal protection claim. As to plaintiffs' 1st Amendment retaliation claim, the court said in part:

there is no legal support for Plaintiffs’ assertion of a First Amendment right to share their religious beliefs with their foster child, who was neither their biological child nor their adoptive child. In fact, finding that foster parents have an unfettered constitutional right to share their religious beliefs with a foster child would seemingly conflict with the free exercise rights of the foster children and his or her biological parents. Accordingly, I do not find that Plaintiffs can assert a First Amendment retaliation claim based on such a theory.

Rejecting the argument that the state's actions were in retaliation merely for their religious beliefs, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs’ allegations present a close-question regarding causality, nonetheless, I find that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts demonstrating “a pattern of antagonism,” or other circumstantial evidence from which retaliatory or discriminatory motives can be inferred.

Waiver For Foster Care Agencies To Select Parents Using Religious Criteria Violates Establishment Clause

In Rogers v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D SC, May 8, 2020), a South Carolina federal district court refused to dismiss Establishment Clause and sexual orientation discrimination claims by a lesbian couple who challenged waivers granted by the state and federal government allowing religious child placement agencies (CPA's) receiving government funds to select foster parents on the basis of religion. (See prior posting.) The court said in part:

Plaintiffs allege that their inability to become foster parents through Miracle Hill was directly caused by the actions of the State Defendants and Federal Defendants because they have affirmatively enabled the discrimination against Plaintiffs by authorizing Miracle Hill and other religiously-affiliated CPAs to use religious criteria to reject prospective foster parents....

[T]he court finds that a reasonable, informed observer could conclude that the Defendants’ actions were taken in an effort to protect a specific CPA, Miracle Hill, and permit discrimination within South Carolina’s foster care program on the basis of Miracle Hill’s religious criteria. Other courts have similarly held that where, as Plaintiffs allege occurred in this case, a state’s authorization for faith-based CPAs to use religious criteria to exclude prospective foster parents “objectively endorses the religious views of those agencies[,] . . . sending a message . . . that [those prospective foster parents who are rejected] are outsiders, not full members of the community.”... Accordingly, taking all facts set forth in the Complaint as true, Plaintiffs have set forth sufficient allegations that Defendants’ actions had the primary effect of advancing and endorsing religion and, thereby, violate the Lemon test and the requirements of the Establishment Clause. ....

Contrary to Defendants’ argument, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the Constitution does not permit “a system of government in which important, discretionary governmental powers would be delegated to or shared with religious institutions.”... Therefore, to the extent Defendants’ assert that their actions are immune from challenge under the Establishment Clause as “religious accommodation,” such argument is directly contrary to the well-pled allegations in the Complaint and long-established federal jurisprudence and must be rejected at this stage of the proceedings.

Lambda Legal issued a press release announcing the decision.

Supreme Court Grants Review Of City's Refusal To Contract With Catholic Social Services

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, (Docket No. 19-323, certiorari granted 2/24/2020) (Order List). The case will be argued next term. In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld held against 1st Amendment challenges the City of Philadelphia's policy of refusing to contract with foster care agencies, such as Catholic Social Services, that will not place children with same-sex married couples. (See prior posting.)  Links to filings with the Supreme Court in the case are available from SCOTUSblog's case page.

Catholic Agency Charges County With Retaliation

Suit was filed in a Michigan federal district court last week by St. Vincent Catholic Charities of Ingham County, Michigan challenging the county's refusal to renew a grant for services to refugees,  The complaint (full text) in St. Vincent Catholic Charities v. Ingham County Board of Commissioners, (WD MI, filed 12/16/2019) contends that the county's action was in retaliation for a lawsuit by St Vincent's challenging a state requirement that Catholic adoption and foster care agencies place children with same-sex couples, (See prior posting.)  The current lawsuit claims that the county's action amounts to unconstitutional retaliation, and violates its free speech and free exercise rights. Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.

Challenge To Religious Anti-Discrimination Waiver Dismissed For Lack of Standing

In Maddonna v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D SC, Nov. 13, 2019), a South Carolina federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a challenge to action by the federal government and the state that, through a waiver of anti-discrimination requirements, allowed a religiously affiliated foster care agency to place children only with evangelical Christians. The court said in part:

Plaintiff could only conceivably attempt to assert taxpayer standing as to her claims regarding the Establishment Clause. Even then, Plaintiff has not set forth any challenge to any legislative action, but has, rather, challenged discretionary executive actions and appropriations....

 Assuming without deciding that Plaintiff’s other alleged injuries - i.e. that she was denied the opportunity to volunteer and/or become a foster parent through Miracle Hill and was discriminated against in the process - has been sufficiently alleged ..., the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish that such injury was fairly traceable to any Defendant....  [A]t the time Plaintiff was denied the ability to volunteer with or foster through Miracle Hill in 2014, the actions of which she complains had not taken place, and, therefore, cannot conceivably have caused or even contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged harm.

The State reports on the decision.

Michigan Catholic Adoption Agency Gets Preliminary Injunction Protecting Its Policy on LGBTQ Couples

In Buck v. Gordon, (WD MI, Sept. 26, 2019), a Michigan federal district court issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the state from requiring that a Catholic adoption and foster care agency place children with same-sex couples. The agency currently refers such couples to other agencies.  As summarized by the court:

The State pays St. Vincent to place children with foster or adoptive parents certified as suitable by the State. St. Vincent has done that faithfully, regardless of whether the certified parents were opposite sex, same-sex, or unmarried couples. St. Vincent would like to continue doing so under existing and renewed contracts with the State.  

What St. Vincent has not done and will not do is give up its traditional Catholic belief that marriage as instituted by God is for one man and one woman. Based on that belief, St. Vincent has exercised its discretion to ensure that it is not in the position of having to review and recommend to the State whether to certify a same-sex or unmarried couple, and to refer those cases to agencies that do not have a religious confession preventing an honest evaluation and recommendation. In 2015, the Michigan legislature enacted legislation designed to protect that choice, and until January of 2019, the State defended the right of the State and St. Vincent to make that choice.

That changed when Defendant Attorney General Nessel took office. Leading up to and during the 2018 general election campaign, she made it clear that she considered beliefs like St. Vincent’s to be the product of hate. She stated that the 2015 law seeking to protect St. Vincent’s practice was indefensible and had discriminatory animus as its sole purpose. After her election, she ... put St. Vincent in the position of either giving up its belief or giving up its contract with the State. That kind of targeted attack on a sincerely held religious belief is what calls for strict scrutiny in this case and supports entry of a preliminary injunction preserving the status quo while the case is fully litigated.

Detroit News reports on the decision.

Cert Filed In Challenge To Exclusion of Foster Care Agencies That Reject Same-Sex Couples

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed this week in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, (cert. filed 7/22/2019).  In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld against 1st Amendment challenges the City of Philadelphia's policy of refusing to contract with foster care agencies, such as Catholic Social Services, that will not place children with same-sex married couples. (See prior posting.)  Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

Lesbian Couple Has Standing To Challenge Grants To Catholic Foster Care Agency

In Marouf v. Azar, (D DC, June 12, 2019), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that a lesbian couple (as well as an organizational plaintiff) lack taxpayer standing to challenge federal grants to a Catholic non-profit organization which refuses to place unaccompanied refugee children for foster care with same-sex couples.  However, the court held that the couple does have individual standing to pursue their Establishment Clause, Equal Protection and Due Process challenges to the grants.  The court said in part:

According to the Federal Defendants, a federal agency cannot be held to account for a grantee’s known exclusion of persons from a federally funded program on a prohibited ground. That is an astonishing outcome. Surely, the government would not take this position if, say, Plaintiffs here were excluded from fostering a child based on their gender (both are women), national origin (Marouf is the daughter of Egyptian and Turkish immigrants), or religious faith (Marouf was raised a Muslim, Esplin a Mormon). Yet, despite conceding that there is no agency policy that prevents child placement with same sex couples ..., the Federal Defendants in this case wish to avoid the responsibility that comes with being good stewards of federal funds. They cannot do so.

3rd Circuit: Philly May Require Its Foster Care Agencies To Accept Same-Sex Couples

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, (3d Cir., April 22, 2019), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld against 1st Amendment challenges the City of Philadelphia's policy of refusing to contract with foster care agencies, such as Catholic Social Services, that will not place children with same-sex married couples.  The court said in part:

The City’s nondiscrimination policy is a neutral, generally applicable law, and the religious views of CSS do not entitle it to an exception from that policy. 

[A]t the preliminary injunction stage CSS shows insufficient evidence that the City violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Fair Practices Ordinance has not been gerrymandered..., and there is no history of ignoring widespread secular violations ... or the kind of animosity against religion found in Masterpiece. Here the City has been working with CSS for many decades.... And the City has expressed a constant desire to renew its relationship with CSS as a foster care agency if it will comply with the City’s non-discrimination policies protecting same-sex couples.

Philadelphia Inquirer reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Religious Requirements Permitted In South Carolina Faith-Based Foster-Care Agencies

A lawsuit was filed Friday by Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of a Catholic woman challenging actions by the federal government and the state of South Carolina that permit foster-care placement agencies to use religious criteria for approval of foster care families.  The complaint (full text) in Maddonna v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D SC, filed 2/15/2019) challenges the waiver from the religious discrimination ban in federally funded foster-care programs that the Department of Health and Human Services granted to the state of South Carolina last month. (See prior posting.) It also challenges a March 13, 2018 executive order by the Governor of South Carolina (Executive Order 2018-12) permitting licensed faith-based foster-care child-placement agencies to limit recruitment and training of foster parents to those who share the same faith as the agency. Plaintiff in the case, Aimee Maddonna, was refused participation in a foster care volunteer program by Miracle Hill Ministries because Miracle Hill required participants to be born-again Christians who belong to a Protestant church. The suit alleges Establishment Clause, equal protection and due process violations. AP reports on the lawsuit.

HHS Exempts South Carolina Foster Care From Religious Anti-Discrimination Rule

In a letter (full text) dated Jan. 23, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services granted the state of South Carolina an exemption so that faith-based foster care placement agencies operating in the state (such as Miracle Hill Ministries) can receive federal funds even though they select foster parents on the basis of religion.  HHS emphasized that the anti-discrimination requirements found in its rules are broader than those in the Foster Care Program statute which only bars discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in selection of adoptive or foster parents. HHS said it had determined that requiring faith-based agencies to comply with the non-discrimination provision would be inconsistent with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. However such agencies would be required to refer them to other agencies that do not use religious criteria, at least so long as such referrals do not violate the agency's religious beliefs. Philadelphia Inquirer reports on the HHS action.

Third Circuit Hears Arguments In Challenge To Foster Care Non-Discrimination Requirement

Courthouse News Service reports on Tuesday's oral arguments in the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In the case, a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected Catholic Social Services challenges to the requirement that it not discriminate against same-sex couples in foster care placement. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Refuses Emergency Injunction In Catholic Social Services Foster Care Case

In a one-sentence order yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant an emergency injunction in Fulton v. Philadelphia.  In the case, a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected Catholic Social Services challenges to Philadelphia' requirement that it not discriminate against same-sex couples in foster care placement. Catholic Social Services wanted the Supreme Court to allow it to continue foster care placements while it appealed the city's intake freeze to the 3rd Circuit. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would have granted the injunction. SCOTUSblog reports on the court's action

Court Rejects Challenges To Foster Care Agency Non-Discrimination Requirement

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, (ED PA, July 13, 2018), a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected Catholic Social Services challenges to the requirement that it not discriminate against same-sex couples in foster care placement.  CSS argued that the requirement violates the Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment Clauses of the 1st Amendment as well as Pennsylvania's Religious Freedom Act. The court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the requirement, saying in part:

CSS’s compliance with the terms of the Services Contract does not: constrain or inhibit CSS from conduct or expression mandated by its religious beliefs, curtail CSS’s ability to express adherence to CSS’s religious faith, deny CSS a reasonable opportunity to “provide foster care to children,” or compel CSS to engage in conduct or expression that violates a “specific tenet” of CSS’s religious faith....

CSS contends that the provision of certification services for same-sex couples would require CSS to express its religious approval of same-sex relationships in contravention of Catholic teaching about marriage. This is not the case. To illustrate this point, if, for example, CSS were to certify a couple where one spouse is previously divorced, CSS’s certification would not suggest that CSS approved of divorce as a religious matter.

Philadelphia Inquirer reports on the decision.

Catholic Social Services Sues Philadelphia Over End To Foster Care Referrals

A suit was filed in a Pennsylvania federal district court this week by Philadelphia Catholic Social Services and two of its clients challenging action taken by the city of Philadelphia to stop foster care referrals to the agency.  The city took the action because of CSS's policy against placing foster children with same-sex couples.  The complaint (full text) in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, (ED PA, filed 5/16/2018), alleges in part:

Catholic Social Services remains willing and able to continue its ministry serving children in Philadelphia. It wants to help alleviate the foster care crisis in Philadelphia, and it has not and will not prevent any qualified family from becoming a foster parent, be it through Catholic Social Services or a referral to another agency. But because of the City’s actions, Catholic Social Services is unable to place foster children with families. Its 100-year-old ministry to at-risk children is in jeopardy.

The complaint alleges violation of Pennsylvania's Religious Freedom Protection Act, the 1st and 14th Amendments. Pennsylvania constitutional provisions, the Philadelphia city charter and breach of contract. Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.