Anonymous ID: 5d4733 Nov. 13, 2020, 7:15 a.m. No.11626212   🗄️.is đź”—kun

Amy Coney Barrett sizes up 30-year-old precedent balancing religious freedom with rule of law

 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s first week as an active Supreme Court justice began on Nov. 2 and almost immediately included a case that could test her credentials as a religious conservative.

 

On the surface, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which was argued in front of the court on Nov. 4, concerns whether the state can require organizations it partners with to accept same-sex couples as foster parents.

 

But underneath are questions about how Barrett and her fellow justices will deal with a decades-old Supreme Court ruling that could have wider implications for religious liberty cases.

 

The case in front of the justices concerns how Philadelphia partners with private organizations – both religious and secular – to find homes for children in foster care. In 2018, Philadelphia learned that two organizations, Catholic Social Services and Bethany Christian Services, had religiously motivated policies against placing children with same-sex couples in violation of Philadelphia’s Fair Practices Ordinance.

 

Philadelphia stopped sending foster care placement requests to these organizations as a result, prompting Catholic Social Services to sue.

 

Lawyers for Catholic Social Services argue that Philadelphia’s response violates First Amendment protections of religion and speech. Two lower federal courts ruled in Philadelphia’s favor. It is now up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the lower courts got it right.

 

Based on the questions asked during oral arguments, Fulton could well be decided on technical grounds over whether Catholic Social Services is a contractor or licensee of Philadelphia. But from my perspective as an attorney and First Amendment scholar, Barrett’s questions during oral arguments are of significant interest in considering the future of First Amendment law as it pertains to religious freedom.

 

Specifically, they suggest that Barrett is examining a key piece of First Amendment precedent: Employment Division v. Smith.

 

more

https://www.yahoo.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-sizes-30-134029792.html