Supreme Court will decide if preschools that decline children of same-sex couples may receive state funding

Source: CNN

Politics
Supreme Court will decide if preschools that decline children of same-sex couples may receive state funding

By John Fritze
Updated 1 hr 15 min ago


The sun rises above a facade of the US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC, on March 31, 2026. Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to review a Colorado law that requires preschools receiving taxpayer money to enroll children of same-sex couples -- setting up an important First Amendment showdown at the high court that pits religious rights against LGBTQ families.

At the same time, the court declined to hear another high-profile case involving a Massachusetts couple who said their school began treating their middle school child as genderqueer against their wishes.

After years of allowing religious schools in some settings to receive state funding alongside secular schools, the 6-3 conservative court will now decide what to do when school leaders assert that anti-discrimination laws intended to protect gay and transgender people conflict with their religious beliefs. The appeal from the Catholic parishes will likely be heard in the fall and a decision is likely sometime next year.

Colorado enacted a ballot provision in 2020 that provides state funding for a universal preschool program, allowing both public and private schools to take part. The state program includes a nondiscrimination provision that requires each school receiving public money to provide eligible children an equal opportunity to enroll, regardless of race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity and other factors.

{snip}

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/20/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-preschool

BREAKING: The Supreme Court takes up two new cases for next term, including a case over Colorado’s exclusion of Catholic preschools from public funding.

The case specifically raises a question the court has circled around for years: Whether 1990’s Employment Division v. Smith should be overruled.

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-04-20T13:41:55.222Z

Here is the full orders list: www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-04-20T13:44:45.428Z

Sorry for the confusion: I had meant the case “raised” that question, not “raises,” because the Supreme Court cut the question — and had intended to follow up with this to show that they cut that (but got distracted with arguments).

The court still is circling, was my point.

Apologies again!

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-04-20T14:29:45.367Z

Here’s the cert petition, in which the Becket Fund is representing the parishes and others who sued over the exclusion: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-04-20T14:43:10.101Z

Employment Division v. Smith was Scalia's best opinion. You don't get to escape the law simply because you are religious.

— Erik of Portland, Governmental Lawlessness Disliker (@erikgunderson.bsky.social) 2026-04-20T15:05:19.370Z