Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


Court to Consider Religious Freedom of Exercise, and LGBT Rights in Philadelphia-based Foster Care Case

5/10/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Emma Davies
Emma Davies is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, majoring in Philosophy.
​On February 24, 2020, the Supreme Court added Fulton v. City of Philadelphia to its docket. This case, which was brought by Catholic Social Services (CSS), challenges the City Of Philadelphia’s decision to stop referring foster children to CSS for placement on the grounds that the agency does not certify same-sex couples as foster parents. The agency had lost in lower courts, but appealed their case to the Supreme Court. The ruling of this case may lay out further explanation to the types of religious discrimination claims that warrant legal remedy, alter the decision in Employment Division v. Smith, and address whether the government violates the First Amendment by making participation in the foster-care system contingent on whether an agency conducts themselves in a way that goes against their religious beliefs [1].
In March, 2018, the city of Philadelphia barred Catholic Social Services from placing children in foster homes, unless they began to consider same-sex couples. On one side, the lawyers representing Catholic Social Services argue that the city’s actions are a result of city leaders holding different personal views on marriage. They argue that this is a discriminatory policy, which endangers at-risk children and may force Catholic Social Services to close.  The CCS contends that they have the right to free exercise of religion, which entitles them to a taxpayer-funded contract to perform a government service of placing foster children, even if they are unwilling to comply with city policy [2]. On the other side, the City of Philadelphia holds that they have a right to require all of its contracted foster care agencies to accept all qualified families. The City claims that this contract prohibits discrimination against same-sex couples, such that refusal to comply permits the City to stop referrals [3].

As explained in the petition for a writ of certiorari, the written request made by the Catholic Social Services to the Supreme Court asking the Court to review the decision of the appellate court, the decision of this case may alter interpretations of Employment Division v. Smith. In Employment Division v. Smith, a landmark Supreme Court case, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority opinion, held that the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause does not “[hold] that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the government is free to regulate.” In other words, laws, which do not specifically single out a specific religion, but rather are “neutral” and regulate an action that the government would otherwise rationally concern itself with, cannot be ignored by individuals or institutions on the basis that it goes against a religious belief. For example, the government prohibits murder as a matter of regard for human life, social order, etc. Therefore, a religious group that practices human sacrifice as part of a religious ceremony could not be excused from this law by claiming that they have a right to free exercise, since it is a law that applies to everyone and has a legitimate government interest [4].

If the Court decides that the Catholic Social Services has a valid claim to religious discrimination, it would alter the interpretation of Employment Division v. Smith by holding that “neutral” laws, that is, laws that do not single out a specific religious group, could still be considered an act of religious discrimination for other reasons. In this case, the ramifications of the City of Philadelphia’s policy is that it causes religious groups to conduct themselves in a way that, CCS argues, goes against their religious beliefs. Specificallly, referring foster children to same-sex couples would go against their religious beliefs that marriage is a union between a male and a female [5].

However, Employment Division v. Smith, is not the only case that the Court will be using in analyzing the issues at hand. A growing body of Supreme Court cases have emerged since Employment Division v. Smith, which address either the Free Exercise Clause, discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, or the potential collision between the two, such as Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commision, Romer v. Evans, Obergefell v. Hodges [6]. Even though the Civil Right’s Act of 1964 does not explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, a growing body of cases, most notably Obergefell v. Hodges, have responded to growing support for sexual orientation as a protected status  [7]. If the Court follows this trajectory, then it would provide support to the claim that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is impermissible.

​​​​​​​The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
References
[1] Howe, Amy. “Justices to Take up Case Involving Faith-Based Adoption Agencies and Same-Sex Couples.” SCOTUSblog, 24 Feb. 2020, www.scotusblog.com/2020/02/justices-to-take-up-case-involving-faith-based-adoption-agencies-and-same-sex-couples/.
[2] Becket Staff. “Sharonell Fulton, Et Al. v. City of Philadelphia.” Becket, Becket, 26 Sept. 2019, www.becketlaw.org/case/sharonell-fulton-et-al-v-city-philadelphia/.
[3] ACLU Staff. “Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.” American Civil Liberties Union, 24 Feb. 2020, www.aclu.org/cases/fulton-v-city-philadelphia.
[4] "Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith." Oyez,www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1213. Accessed 19 Mar. 2020.
[5] Becket Staff. “Sharonell Fulton, Et Al. v. City of Philadelphia.” Becket, Becket, 26 Sept. 2019, www.becketlaw.org/case/sharonell-fulton-et-al-v-city-philadelphia/.
[6] Chemerinsky, Erwin. “Not a Masterpiece: The Supreme Court's Decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.” American Bar Association, American Bar Association, 20 Oct. 2018, www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/.
[7] History.com Editors. “Civil Rights Act of 1964.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 4 Jan. 2010, www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-act.

Photo Credits: https://flic.kr/p/2iVg5vP by Ted Eytan
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Aaron Tsui
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alexandra Kerrigan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Amanda Damayanti
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Arshiya Pant
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Catherine Tang
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Jewell
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabrielle Cohen
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Hannah Steinberg
    Harshit Rai
    Hennessis Umacta
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Ingrid Holmquist
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Khlood Awan
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyan Casamalhuapa
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Michael Merolla
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nathan Liu
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nicole Patel
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Paula Vekker
    Pheby Liu
    Pragat Patel
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Samantha Graines
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Tyler Ringhofer
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    September 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    May 2023
    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.