Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
2021 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Fulton v. City of Philadelphia?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with litigation over discrimination of local regulations based on the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The specific case deals with a religious-backed foster care agency that was denied a new contract by the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, due to the agency's refusal to certify married same-sex couples as foster parents on religious grounds.
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia | |
---|---|
Argued November 4, 2020 Decided June 17, 2021 | |
Full case name | Sharonell Fulton, et al., Petitioners v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, et al. |
Docket no. | 19-123 |
Citations | 593 U.S. ___ (more) 141 S. Ct. 1868 210 L. Ed. 2d 137 |
Case history | |
Prior | |
Holding | |
The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Roberts, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
Concurrence | Barrett, joined by Kavanaugh; Breyer (all but first paragraph) |
Concurrence | Alito (in judgment), joined by Thomas, Gorsuch |
Concurrence | Gorsuch (in judgment), joined by Thomas, Alito |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I |
In a unanimous judgment on June 17, 2021, the Court ruled that the city's refusal due to the agency's same-sex couple policy violated the Free Exercise Clause. The case was decided on narrow grounds outside of the Supreme Court's prior decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which had previously ruled that neutral laws of general applicability could not be challenged for violating religious exemptions. Instead, in Fulton, the court ruled that services like foster care contracting were not generally applicable under Smith, and thus were subject to strict scrutiny review. Because the city allowed for exceptions to be made in its anti-discrimination policy for foster care certification, the Court deemed the city's refusal to grant an exemption for Catholic Social Services as violating its free exercise of religion under Smith.