Even though Catholic Social Services had not turned down same-sex or unmarried couples in adoption referrals, the city, which has a monopoly on the area’s foster care system, severed its partnership with them in March. 2018 due to their religious beliefs about marriage. The city also passed a resolution calling for an investigation into religious fostering agencies after a same-sex couple complained of discrimination by a separate faith-based agency.
Catholic social services are not allowed to make new placements unless they agree to recommend same-sex couples to adopt children.
Currently, the organization only serves children they have already placed in foster care and has a “wind down” contract. They have already started laying off employees, even though there are families who want to adopt children and work with Catholic Social Services.
“This is an area where the agency is pushing urgently and needs help because the city has cut them off from all new placements,” Rienzi said. “It’s a real and ongoing hurt for the agency, it’s a real and ongoing hurt for the families who have signed up to do the very noble job of foster care, and it’s also a real and ongoing hurt continuous for a group of children whose names we don’t know.”
The Supreme Court agreed in February to hear the case which is now scheduled for the fall 2020 term. Becket’s opening brief in the case is due May 27, and amicus briefs in the Support from Catholic Social Services is due June 3.
As briefings progress, “in the normal course, we expect this case to go to trial in October,” Rienzi said, but that timing could also be affected by the coronavirus.
Several religious freedom cases have already been debated and are fully informed, so a decision can be expected “any day now,” Rienzi said. “The judges have indicated that they continue to enforce their decisions.”
One of them is Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue which involves students using state scholarships to attend religious schools.
A trio of cases argued in the fall concern whether existing Title VII civil rights protections against sex discrimination also apply to sexual orientation and gender identity. These cases are Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda and Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC.
Like with Espinozadecisions in these cases could be published any day, Rienzi said.
Two other cases-Our Lady of Guadalupe School c. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. biel-bringing in “the ministerial exception”. The cases focus on whether or not two Catholic schools in California are free to fire teachers of religion without adverse action from the courts, due to the “ministerial exception.”
(Story continues below)
Becket, who represents the schools, says courts and the government cannot “second-guess” religious institutions’ employment decisions about staff members who provide religious instruction to children.
The cases were due to be argued in March but were postponed. As with the Little Sisters of the Poor case, all briefs have been submitted and so it is unclear what the timeline will be for these cases, Rienzi said.
“The judges have said they will consider their options in light of the development of events as things move forward,” he said. “We’re kind of waiting to see what happens and what the court says is possible.”
