The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments Tuesday in St Mary Catholic Parish v Roy, a case that will define whether religious institutions can access public funding programs while refusing to comply with the nondiscrimination rules every other participant must follow. The question is deceptively simple: can a state condition its money on equal treatment? Two Catholic preschools in Colorado want into a 2023 state program providing 15 hours per week of free preschool. Colorado says they're welcome — if they agree to the same equal-opportunity enrollment requirements binding every other participating school, public and private, secular and religious. Those requirements prohibit discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, housing status, income, or disability. The preschools, backed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, argue the condition itself is unconstitutional — that making funding contingent on nondiscrimination compliance amounts to religious discrimination under the First Amendment. The archdiocese goes further, claiming Colorado permits other preschools to "discriminate in favor of LGBTQ families" and other groups, framing inclusive enrollment as its own form of discrimination. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops filed an amicus brief warning that the lower court's ruling — which sided with Colorado — "will embolden other states and municipalities to discriminate against religious adherents' rights." The bishops frame the stakes in institutional terms: if allowed to stand, the resulting harm to the nation's "social support infrastructure would be immense." Colorado's position rests on a clean distinction: the state didn't exclude religious schools from the program. It set uniform conditions for all participants. The lower appeals court agreed, noting that while prior Supreme Court rulings prohibit categorically withholding funds from religious institutions, Colorado did no such thing — it "welcomed and actively solicited" religious school participation. The structural tension is clear. The court has spent recent terms expanding the reach of religious liberty claims (Carson v Makin, Kennedy v Bremerton). A ruling for the preschools would establish that religious institutions can access taxpayer-funded programs while operating enrollment policies that would be illegal for any other participant — effectively creating a two-tier system where public money flows without public obligations. What's at stake is not a preschool program. It's the principle that conditions attached to public funding must apply equally to everyone who takes the money. If the court rules that religious belief exempts institutions from those conditions, the precedent reaches far beyond Colorado — into healthcare, housing, social services, and every government program that touches religiously affiliated providers.
