The Trump administration argued in a recent brief that Philadelphia had shown unconstitutional hostility toward a faith-based organization when it excluded it from a foster care program because of its religious-based objection to same-sex marriage.
The city said they stopped referring children to the agency and is not renewing its contract with it because the agency, which has served the city for over 100 years, had allegedly contravened the city’s Fair Practices Ordinance. The policy prohibits discrimination on the basis of a variety of factors, including race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
The DOJ argued in support of CSS and the foster parents, saying that Philadelphia’s actions had “impermissibly discriminated against religious exercise” and shown “unconstitutional hostility toward Catholic Social Services’ religious beliefs.”
“Separately, the application of the City’s policies in this case was tinged with hostility toward religious exercise, not the ‘neutrality that the Free Exercise Clause requires,’” the department argued.
It added that the city was acting against them even though the agency’s “beliefs about marriage haven’t prevented anyone from fostering.” CSS also said that, since its opening in 1917 until the start of the case in 2018, they have not been approached by a single same-sex couple about being foster parents, and therefore, no same-sex couple has been prevented from fostering or adopting a child by CSS.
The Trump administration’s brief comes on the same week 76 members of Congress, dozens of states, and a number of diverse religious groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs to urge the top court to allow CSS to continue operating in Philadelphia.
“Faith-based agencies are some of the best at combating the foster care crisis across the nation, yet across the country, they face threats from those who disagree with their religious beliefs. I am hopeful that the Court will recognize that faith-based agencies are rightfully part of the solution and shouldn’t be subject to the political appetites of their adversaries.”