St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy (25-581)
- Term
- OT 2026
- Certiorari granted
- 2026-04-20
- Court below
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
- Argued
- 2026-11-03
The case in brief
Facts
Colorado funds a universal preschool program that public and private preschools can join, but each school must give children an equal chance to enroll regardless of traits including religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The Archdiocese of Denver, which oversees Catholic preschools, tells its schools not to admit families who disagree with Church teaching on biological sex and marriage. In 2023, the Archdiocese asked the state for a religious exception to the equal-enrollment rule, and the state refused. Two Catholic parishes, a Catholic family, and the Archdiocese sued, but the trial court and the Tenth Circuit appeals court ruled for the state, relying on an earlier Supreme Court case, Employment Division v. Smith. The appeals court held that the state's exceptions for low-income families and children with disabilities were not comparable to the religious exception the Catholic preschools wanted, and the challengers then asked the Supreme Court to review the case.
Question
Does a law stop counting as one that applies equally to everyone only if officials have unlimited discretion or exempt identical nonreligious conduct, and does Carson v. Makin's stronger protection for religious schools apply only when the government openly excludes religious groups?
Question Presented
1. Whether proving a lack of general applicability under Employment Division v. Smith requires showing unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct.
2. Whether Carson v. Makin displaces the rule of Employment Division v. Smith only when the government explicitly excludes religious people and institutions.
Scope of review: Review granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 of the petition. The petition's third question — whether Employment Division v. Smith should be overruled — is not before the Court.
Model prediction
St. Mary Catholic Parish 6-3 (74% confidence, raw). Calibrated to the historical base rate: St. Mary Catholic Parish 70%.
Case preview
Whether Colorado may require religious preschools in its publicly funded universal preschool program to admit families without regard to sexual orientation, gender identity, or religion, and which Free Exercise standard (Smith or Carson) governs that requirement.
St. Mary Catholic Parish
- The petitioner argues that this Court has largely treated Smith as a fallback rule, using other Free Exercise standards in many categories of cases, while lower courts have wrongly made Smith the default rule.
- The petitioner argues that under Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson, denying a public benefit based on religious exercise is prohibited. It contends the Tenth Circuit erred in limiting Carson to laws that specifically target religion, a reading that would make Carson easy to evade.
- The petitioner argues that even under Smith, Colorado's mandate is not generally applicable because Colorado grants categorical exemptions for preschools serving low-income families and children with disabilities.
- The petitioner argues that Colorado also has discretion to let preschools prefer particular groups, which further undermines general applicability, and that petitioners seek only the same accommodation.
- The petitioner argues that Colorado fails strict scrutiny. In its view, Colorado has encouraged preschools to serve particular communities, identified only speculative harm, and did not consider less restrictive alternatives.
Roy
- The respondent argues that the program welcomes faith-based preschools and applies the same nondiscrimination conditions to secular and religious providers alike.
- The respondent argues that Smith still governs neutral, generally applicable laws. In its view, Carson did not displace Smith for public benefit programs but applied the principle that government may not target religion.
- The respondent argues that petitioners seek a sweeping new rule requiring strict scrutiny of neutral public-benefit conditions, without precedent or limits.
- The respondent argues that the statute's priority for children with disabilities and low-income children is not an exception to the equal-opportunity requirement. It contends that reading the requirement to protect those children reconciles the statutory directives.
- The respondent argues that the agency's discretion to adjust the matching algorithm does not create exceptions, because adjustments may not violate the equal-opportunity requirements. It adds that those requirements satisfy any level of scrutiny.
The United States: The United States, supporting petitioners, argues that strict scrutiny applies for two reasons. First, Colorado's law is not generally applicable, because it has categorical secular exemptions and an individualized 'catchall preference' mechanism. Second, Smith does not govern laws that condition public benefits on lawful religious exercise, which remain subject to the Sherbert/Carson strict-scrutiny test.
How the case got here
The Archdiocese of Denver, two Catholic parishes (St. Mary and St. Bernadette), and parents Daniel and Lisa Sheley sued Colorado officials after the Colorado Department of Early Childhood denied the Archdiocese's request for a religious accommodation from the universal preschool program's equal-opportunity requirement, which bars participating preschools from denying enrollment based on, among other things, sexual orientation and gender identity. After a three-day bench trial, the district court applied Employment Division v. Smith, held the challenged aspects of the requirement neutral and generally applicable, and entered judgment against the plaintiffs. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that Carson v. Makin and related cases did not apply and that the requirement was neutral and generally applicable. The petitioners contend that this decision conflicts with Fulton and Carson and that Smith should be overruled.
- 2023-02-17 — Colorado Department of Early Childhood: Archdiocese of Denver requested a religious accommodation from the equal opportunity Mandate
- Date not stated — Colorado Department of Early Childhood: Department responded that no religious accommodation would be provided. Request denied
- 2023-08-18 — U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado: Complaint filed; preliminary injunction requested to allow participation in UPK for 2023-24 school year. Court did not rule on the preliminary injunction motion and instead set a discovery and briefing schedule
- 2024-01 — U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado: Three-day bench trial held with ten witnesses
- 2024-06 — U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado: Final judgment entered; court applied Smith and held the sexual-orientation and gender-identity aspects of the equal-opportunity requirement neutral and generally applicable; held the Archdiocese lacked associational standing; held the congregation exemption violated the Mandate (736 F.Supp.3d 956). Respondents (state officials) prevailed on the free exercise claims
- 2025-09-30 — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: Panel affirmed; held Carson line distinguishable, applied Smith, and found the Mandate neutral and generally applicable; declined to address Archdiocese's associational standing (154 F.4th 752). Affirmed in favor of respondents
- 2025-11-13 — Supreme Court of the United States: Petition for certiorari filed
- 2026-03-02 — Supreme Court of the United States: Brief in opposition filed
- 2026-04-20 — Supreme Court of the United States: Certiorari granted
- 2026-07-02 — Supreme Court of the United States: United States files amicus brief
- 2026-08-11 — Supreme Court of the United States: Set for argument on Tuesday, November 3, 2026.
- 2026-11-03 — Supreme Court of the United States: Argued
In the news
Interactive oral-argument transcript · Supreme Court docket · All tracked cases
This static summary is shown when JavaScript is disabled. The full interactive analysis loads above.