Court Ruling

Denver Archdiocese, Catholic schools ask Supreme Court for access to preschool program #Catholic null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller|Shutterstock CNA Staff, Nov 15, 2025 / 11:00 am (CNA). The Archdiocese of Denver and a coalition of Catholic preschools are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them to access a Colorado universal preschool program.The petition to the high court comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in September that Colorado may continue to exclude Catholic preschools from its Universal Preschool Program because of their religious beliefs.Catholic preschools in Denver ask teachers and families to sign a pledge promising to uphold their religious mission, including teachings on sexuality and gender identity. The Colorado preschool program’s nondiscrimination clause, however, requires schools to uphold provisions on sexual orientation and “gender identity.”Two Catholic parish preschools and the Denver Archdiocese first filed suit in August 2023 against the requirement.In a Nov. 14 press release, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — which has represented the schools and the archdiocese in the lawsuit — said the Catholic schools “are asking the Supreme Court to ensure that Colorado makes good on its promise of universal preschool.”“Colorado is picking winners and losers based on the content of their religious beliefs,” Nick Reaves, a senior lawyer at Becket, said in the release. “That sort of religious discrimination flies in the face of our nation’s traditions and decades of Supreme Court rulings,” he said. “We’re asking the court to step in and make sure ‘universal’ preschool really is universal.” Scott Elmer, who serves as chief mission officer for the Denver Archdiocese, said the schools are seeking “the ability to offer families who choose a Catholic education the same access to free preschool services that’s available at thousands of other preschools across Colorado.”Becket in its press release said the Colorado rules have had a “predictable effect” in which “enrollment at Catholic preschools has swiftly declined, while two Catholic preschools have shuttered their doors.”The law group said the lower court rulings go against recent Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom, including Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which held that the Montana Constitution’s bar on public funding of religious institutions violated the First Amendment.In May the Supreme Court declined to rule in a contentious case involving what was proposed to be the nation’s first religious charter school, leaving untouched a lower court ruling that forbade the Oklahoma Catholic institution from accessing state funds.
Read More

Denver Archdiocese, Catholic schools ask Supreme Court for access to preschool program #Catholic null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller|Shutterstock CNA Staff, Nov 15, 2025 / 11:00 am (CNA). The Archdiocese of Denver and a coalition of Catholic preschools are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them to access a Colorado universal preschool program.The petition to the high court comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in September that Colorado may continue to exclude Catholic preschools from its Universal Preschool Program because of their religious beliefs.Catholic preschools in Denver ask teachers and families to sign a pledge promising to uphold their religious mission, including teachings on sexuality and gender identity. The Colorado preschool program’s nondiscrimination clause, however, requires schools to uphold provisions on sexual orientation and “gender identity.”Two Catholic parish preschools and the Denver Archdiocese first filed suit in August 2023 against the requirement.In a Nov. 14 press release, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — which has represented the schools and the archdiocese in the lawsuit — said the Catholic schools “are asking the Supreme Court to ensure that Colorado makes good on its promise of universal preschool.”“Colorado is picking winners and losers based on the content of their religious beliefs,” Nick Reaves, a senior lawyer at Becket, said in the release. “That sort of religious discrimination flies in the face of our nation’s traditions and decades of Supreme Court rulings,” he said. “We’re asking the court to step in and make sure ‘universal’ preschool really is universal.” Scott Elmer, who serves as chief mission officer for the Denver Archdiocese, said the schools are seeking “the ability to offer families who choose a Catholic education the same access to free preschool services that’s available at thousands of other preschools across Colorado.”Becket in its press release said the Colorado rules have had a “predictable effect” in which “enrollment at Catholic preschools has swiftly declined, while two Catholic preschools have shuttered their doors.”The law group said the lower court rulings go against recent Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom, including Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which held that the Montana Constitution’s bar on public funding of religious institutions violated the First Amendment.In May the Supreme Court declined to rule in a contentious case involving what was proposed to be the nation’s first religious charter school, leaving untouched a lower court ruling that forbade the Oklahoma Catholic institution from accessing state funds.

unitedyam

null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller|Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 15, 2025 / 11:00 am (CNA).

The Archdiocese of Denver and a coalition of Catholic preschools are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them to access a Colorado universal preschool program.

The petition to the high court comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in September that Colorado may continue to exclude Catholic preschools from its Universal Preschool Program because of their religious beliefs.

Catholic preschools in Denver ask teachers and families to sign a pledge promising to uphold their religious mission, including teachings on sexuality and gender identity. The Colorado preschool program’s nondiscrimination clause, however, requires schools to uphold provisions on sexual orientation and “gender identity.”

Two Catholic parish preschools and the Denver Archdiocese first filed suit in August 2023 against the requirement.

In a Nov. 14 press release, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — which has represented the schools and the archdiocese in the lawsuit — said the Catholic schools “are asking the Supreme Court to ensure that Colorado makes good on its promise of universal preschool.”

“Colorado is picking winners and losers based on the content of their religious beliefs,” Nick Reaves, a senior lawyer at Becket, said in the release. 

“That sort of religious discrimination flies in the face of our nation’s traditions and decades of Supreme Court rulings,” he said. “We’re asking the court to step in and make sure ‘universal’ preschool really is universal.” 

Scott Elmer, who serves as chief mission officer for the Denver Archdiocese, said the schools are seeking “the ability to offer families who choose a Catholic education the same access to free preschool services that’s available at thousands of other preschools across Colorado.”

Becket in its press release said the Colorado rules have had a “predictable effect” in which “enrollment at Catholic preschools has swiftly declined, while two Catholic preschools have shuttered their doors.”

The law group said the lower court rulings go against recent Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom, including Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which held that the Montana Constitution’s bar on public funding of religious institutions violated the First Amendment.

In May the Supreme Court declined to rule in a contentious case involving what was proposed to be the nation’s first religious charter school, leaving untouched a lower court ruling that forbade the Oklahoma Catholic institution from accessing state funds.

Read More
State-level religious freedom protections grow in recent years #Catholic Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA). Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakeningWhen RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. “[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.
Read More

State-level religious freedom protections grow in recent years #Catholic Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA). Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakeningWhen RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. “[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.

unitedyam

Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA).

Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.

As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. 

The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.

RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.

Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. 

Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakening

When RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.

Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.

“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”

Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.

From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.

However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”

One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.

Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”

In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.

Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. 

“[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.

Read More