Law & Courts

Some Takeaways for Educators in Supreme Court Rulings on Obamacare, Religious Liberties

By Mark Walsh — June 17, 2021 6 min read
Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington on April 23, 2021.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday issued decisions in two cases that educators were keeping tabs on—one involving a battle between religious rights and anti-discrimination policies and the other over the Affordable Care Act.

The court ruled that the city of Philadelphia violated the First Amendment free-exercise-of-religion rights of a Catholic social services agency by refusing to refer children for foster care placements due to the agency’s refusal to screen same-sex couples.

The case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (No. 19-123), had been watched for its potential impact on larger questions about the assertion of religious rights to seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws that cover sexual orientation. Among them: how such principles will play out when private religious schools seek to partake in government programs such as vouchers but keep rules barring LGBTQ students or faculty members.

But while the court was unanimous in ruling for the Catholic agency, the majority ruling signed by six justices took a narrow approach that leaves those larger questions for another day.

Meanwhile, in California v. Texas (No. 19-840), the court ruled 7-2 that a group of individuals and Republican-led states lacked legal standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act after Congress in 2017 eliminated the penalty for not complying with the law’s individual mandate to carry insurance.

Educator groups weighed in on health-care case

Both the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association had joined a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the landmark law, which was enacted in 2010 under President Barack Obama and survived two other major challenges in the Supreme Court. The brief the unions signed emphasized the expanded number of children and young adults covered by health insurance because of provisions in the ACA.

“Today’s decision by the court sends yet another clear message that there is no appetite—legal or otherwise—to dismantle health insurance on which more than 21 million Americans depend,” NEA President Becky Pringle said in a statement Thursday.

In this latest challenge, a federal district court held that the entire law was unconstitutional because the individual mandate was no longer sustainable under the tax-power theory that the Supreme Court had relied on in its landmark 2012 decision upholding most of the ACA. A federal appeals court struck down the individual mandate, but said the district court should examine whether that provision could be severed without invalidating the entire law.

Writing for the majority in the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the case should not have been allowed to proceed because the challengers failed to show any “concrete, particularized injury” that can be traced to the elimination of the individual mandate.

His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Thomas, in a concurrence, said he continued to believe the ACA was unconstitutional, but “the individual plaintiffs allege only harm caused by the bare existence of an unlawful statute that does not impose any obligations or consequences. That is not enough.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in a dissent joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, said the majority had yet again “pulled off an improbable rescue” of the health care law.

“Instead of defending the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the court simply ducks the issue and holds that none of the act’s challengers, including the 18 states that think the act saddles them with huge financial costs, is entitled to sue,” Alito said.

In Philadelphia foster care case, the majority adopts a narrow approach

The foster care case involved Catholic Social Services, an agency of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia. It challenged its exclusion from the city’s foster-care system after the city learned in 2018 about its policy of not certifying same-sex couples to become foster parents, which violated a city anti-discrimination law that covers sexual orientation.

CSS said it had never been approached by a same-sex couple, and if it had, it would have referred the couple to one of some 30 other foster-care agencies in the city, including a few that focus on the LGBTQ community. The agency said its exclusion violated its First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights.

A federal appeals court ruled that the city was applying a neutral and generally applicable policy and thus upheld it under the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. In that case, the high court cast aside a long-prevalent “strict scrutiny” test for evaluating government action that infringed the free exercise of religion guaranteed under the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court had asked the parties to address whether Smith should be overruled. But in his majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts said the city’s non-discrimination requirement in its foster-care contract was not generally applicable because it gave room for a city official to grant exceptions.

“This case falls outside Smith because the city has burdened the religious exercise of CSS through policies that do not meet the requirement of being neutral and generally applicable,” Roberts said.

Furthermore, foster care placements do not fit neatly into the definition of “public accommodations” covered by the anti-discrimination law, Roberts said.

“Certification as a foster parent … is not readily accessible to the public,” Roberts said. “It involves a customized and selective assessment that bears little resemblance to staying in a hotel, eating at a restaurant, or riding a bus.”

The chief justice said the city’s interest in the equal treatment of prospective foster parents and foster children was “a weighty one,” but on the facts of this case “this interest cannot justify denying CSS an exception for its religious exercise.”

Robert’s opinion was joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Barrett, in a concurrence joined by Kavanaugh and in most part by Breyer, said there was no need to consider overruling Smith in this case.

Alito, in a 77-page opinion concurring in the outcome that was joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, said the court should have used the case to overrule Smith.

He said the majority opinion was based on a “superfluous (and likely to be short-lived)” feature of Philadelphia’s contract that allows for exceptions, which the city could easily eliminate and put the parties at odds once again.

“This decision might as well be written on the dissolving paper sold in magic shops,” Alito said. “After receiving more than 2,500 pages of briefing and after more than a half-year of post-argument cogitation, the court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state.”

Alito cited a number of K-12 school cases to help illustrate his long catalogue of reasons about why Smith has been problematic. For example, he said the recent spate of cases involving COVID-19 closure rules pointed up that courts have sometimes used improper comparators for deciding whether a restriction was neutral and generally applicable. He cited a case last year in which a federal appeals court upheld Kentucky’s rules for school closures against a challenge by a religious school.

When that school sought emergency relief in the Supreme Court in December, the court refused, but Alito joined a dissent by Gorsuch that said that Kentucky’s closure order covering religious and secular schools may have discriminated against religion because the lower court had failed to compare it with a separate order governing the closure of businesses.

Gorsuch issued his own opinion concurring in the judgment, signed by Thomas and Alito, that said that only the high court can fix the errors of Smith.

“Dodging the question today guarantees that it recurs tomorrow,” Gorsuch said. “These cases will keep coming until the court musters the fortitude to supply an answer.”

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Curriculum Webinar
Strategies for Incorporating SEL into Curriculum
Empower students to thrive. Learn how to integrate powerful social-emotional learning (SEL) strategies into the classroom.
Content provided by Be GLAD
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
School & District Management Webinar
Leadership in Education: Building Collaborative Teams and Driving Innovation
Learn strategies to build strong teams, foster innovation, & drive student success.
Content provided by Follett Learning
School & District Management K-12 Essentials Forum Principals, Lead Stronger in the New School Year
Join this free virtual event for a deep dive on the skills and motivation you need to put your best foot forward in the new year.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Title IX Rule to Protect LGBTQ+ Students Temporarily Blocked in 4 States
A federal judge in Louisiana delivered the first legal blow to the Biden administration's interpretation of Title IX.
4 min read
Demonstrators advocating for transgender rights and healthcare stand outside of the Ohio Statehouse on Jan. 24, 2024, in Columbus, Ohio. Republican states are filing a barrage of legal challenges against the Biden administration's newly expanded campus sexual assault rules, saying they overstep the president's authority and undermine the Title IX anti-discrimination law.
Demonstrators advocating for transgender rights and health care stand outside of the Ohio Statehouse on Jan. 24, 2024, in Columbus, Ohio. Republican states have filed a barrage of legal challenges against the Biden administration's new Title IX rule, and one of them has just resulted in a temporary order blocking the rule in four states.
Patrick Orsagos/AP
Law & Courts Judge Strikes Down Title IX Guidance on LGBTQ+ Students. Here's Why It Matters
In a June 11 ruling, Texas judge said the Education Department has no authority to expand protections under Title IX.
8 min read
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks at a news conference in Dallas on June 22, 2017.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks at a news conference in Dallas on June 22, 2017. His office sued the Biden administration in an attempt to invalidate guidance it released in June 2021 stating it would interpret Title IX to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Tony Gutierrez/AP
Law & Courts Court Backs School That Barred Student's 'Two Genders' Shirt
The court said the shirt could be understood to demean transgender and gender-nonconforming students, and administrators could prohibit it.
5 min read
ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation David Cortman, left, and Liam Morrison speak at a press conference following oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit on Feb. 8, 2024.
David Cortman, senior counsel and vice president of Alliance Defending Freedom, left, and middle school student Liam Morrison speak to reporters following oral arguments over Morrison's "There Are Only Two Genders" T-shirt before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in Boston on Feb. 8, 2024.
Courtesy of Alliance Defending Freedom
Law & Courts Federal Judge Overturns New Hampshire Law on Teaching 'Divisive Concepts'
The judge holds that the law is unconstitutionally vague because it does not make clear to educators what topics they may not teach.
4 min read
Students walk into the front doors at Hinsdale Middle High School, in Hinsdale, N.H., on the first day of school on Aug. 30, 2022.
Students walk into Hinsdale Middle High School, in Hinsdale, N.H., in August 2022. A federal judge has struck down a New Hampshire law that bars the teaching of "divisive concepts" to K-12 students.
Kristopher Radder/The Brattleboro Reformer via AP