Case: St. Mary Catholic Parish, Littleton, Colorado, et al. v. Lisa Roy, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, et al., No. 25-581
Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-11-17
Status: Pending
Question Presented: Colorado's so-called universal preschool program pays for families to send their children to the preschool of their choice, public or private. To participate, preschools must ensure all families have an "equal opportunity" to enroll regardless of, inter alia, race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, income level, or disability. Colorado nonetheless permits numerous exemptions from this requirement, both categorical and discretionary, allowing preschools to admit only "ch...
In a brief filed on January 30, 2026, the United States filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioners. That filing is notable because it signals the federal government’s view that the Tenth Circuit misapplied the general applicability doctrine under Employment Division v. Smith. The government’s alignment with St. Mary Catholic Parish adds institutional weight to a petition already supported by 23 amicus briefs. The full docket is available at CourtListener and the Supreme Court’s docket.
Colorado’s universal preschool program funds families to enroll children in participating preschools. Participation requires equal-enrollment access regardless of religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity, among other characteristics. Colorado carved out categorical exemptions for preschools serving children of color, LGBTQ families, and low-income children, while also retaining discretionary exemption authority. St. Mary Catholic Parish was excluded because it admits only families who affirm Catholic teaching on sex and gender. The Tenth Circuit upheld the exclusion, reasoning that the secular exemptions did not undermine general applicability under Smith.
The legal question is whether a law remains “generally applicable” under Smith when it grants categorical or discretionary exemptions for secular conduct but not for religiously motivated conduct. The Tenth Circuit sided with the minority position in an acknowledged 7-4 circuit split. The petition also raises whether Carson v. Makin applies when a religious exclusion is not stated in explicit terms. The United States’ amicus brief makes it harder for the Court to decline review.
If the Court grants certiorari, it could resolve the circuit split on general applicability and clarify how Carson operates outside explicitly religious exclusions. The case sits at the intersection of free exercise doctrine, government funding programs, and anti-discrimination conditions. Attorneys John Allen Meiser and John J. Bursch are among those representing the petitioners.