“Universal” Pre-K Causes Court to Re-Re-Reconsider Major Religious Precedent

Key Takeaways

• Supreme Court added St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy to relist list
• Case challenges Colorado’s universal preschool nondiscrimination rule
• Petition questions *Smith*’s general‑applicability test and seeks its overruling
• 21 amicus briefs filed, featuring a rare unsolicited U.S. government brief
• Outcome may reshape religious liberty versus anti‑LGBTQ regulations

Pulse Analysis

The Supreme Court’s relist system acts as a barometer for the nation’s most contentious legal disputes, and the addition of St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy signals heightened interest in the clash between religious liberty and state‑mandated nondiscrimination. Colorado’s universal preschool program, praised for expanding early‑childhood access, requires all participating providers—public and private—to accept children irrespective of parents’ sexual orientation, gender identity, or religious affiliation. The Catholic preschools contend that this condition forces them to act against core doctrinal beliefs, invoking the Free Exercise Clause and challenging the precedent set by Employment Division v. Smith, which holds that neutral, generally applicable laws need not accommodate religious objections.

At the heart of the petition are three intertwined legal questions. First, does the Smith standard truly deem Colorado’s rule “generally applicable,” or do the program’s secular exemptions for disabled and low‑income children constitute a categorical carve‑out that undermines the test? Second, how does the Court’s recent decision in Carson v. Makin—requiring the highest scrutiny when a public benefit is conditioned on relinquishing religious exercise—affect the analysis, especially when the exclusion is not explicitly religious? Third, the petitioners ask the Court to overrule Smith altogether, a move that could reverberate across a spectrum of cases involving religious institutions and government regulations. The docket is bolstered by a record‑setting 21 amicus briefs, including an unsolicited brief from the Solicitor General, underscoring the case’s national significance.

Should the Court side with the Catholic preschools, the decision could trigger a wave of litigation challenging similar nondiscrimination requirements in publicly funded services, from healthcare to housing. Conversely, upholding Colorado’s framework would reaffirm the current balance that permits the state to impose neutral conditions on public benefits, even when they intersect with religious doctrine. Either outcome will provide critical guidance for policymakers, educators, and religious organizations navigating the evolving landscape of constitutional free‑exercise rights and anti‑discrimination law.