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: Granted
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...
On April 20, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, limited to the first two questions presented. The grant follows an amicus brief filed by the United States on January 30, 2026, supporting the petitioners. The government’s participation signals that the current administration views the case as an important vehicle for clarifying Free Exercise doctrine.
Colorado’s universal preschool program funds seats at participating providers, public or private. Providers must offer equal enrollment opportunity regardless of religious affiliation, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Colorado has granted categorical exemptions for preschools serving children of color, LGBTQ families, and low-income children, among others. St. Mary Catholic Parish was excluded because its admissions policy requires families to support Catholic teaching on sex and gender. The Tenth Circuit upheld that exclusion, applying Employment Division v. Smith and concluding that the program’s secular exemptions did not undermine general applicability.
The Court will now address a recognized seven-to-four circuit split over what types of exemptions and administrative discretion trigger heightened scrutiny under Smith. The Tenth Circuit sided with the minority view. The Court will also consider whether Carson v. Makin’s rule against excluding religious schools from generally available benefit programs applies when the exclusion is framed in conduct-based rather than explicitly religious terms. That framing question has significant practical consequences for how states may structure program eligibility.
The case sits at the intersection of free exercise and equal access to public benefits. Attorneys John J. Bursch and Gene Schaerr are among counsel for petitioners. How the Court defines “general applicability” here could affect religious providers’ access to a wide range of publicly funded programs well beyond preschool.