This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Supreme Court held that the City’s contractual non‑discrimination requirement imposed a burden on Catholic Social Services’ free‑exercise rights and was not generally applicable.
Background and question before the Court
Catholic Social Services (CSS) holds the religious belief that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman.
The City of Philadelphia argued that CSS’s refusal to certify same‑sex couples violated a non‑discrimination provision in its contract and the citywide Fair Practices Ordinance.
According to Court, CSS alleged that the City’s referral freeze violated the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment.
According to Ms. Windham, the Court was asked whether the Free Exercise Clause “shrinks every time the government expands its reach and begins to regulate work that has historically and traditionally been done by religious groups.”
According to Justice Alito, Justice Alito framed the case as an “important constitutional question” about whether the Court’s current interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause is fundamentally wrong.
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the case involves a clash between free‑exercise rights and the rights recognized in Obergefell.
Justice Thomas asked whether the dispute is about a contractual relationship or a regulatory/licensing scheme.
- [1] fefb7e7dfc9e60acdcf4-r1-7688ac1a239c89eb.pdf, p. 2
- [2] fefb7e7dfc9e60acdcf4-r1-7688ac1a239c89eb.pdf, p. 2
- [3] fefb7e7dfc9e60acdcf4-r1-7688ac1a239c89eb.pdf, p. 2
- [4] be47afabd7754e0af765-r1-e49a8ecf586de441.pdf, p. 24
- [5] fefb7e7dfc9e60acdcf4-r1-7688ac1a239c89eb.pdf, p. 25
- [6] be47afabd7754e0af765-r1-e49a8ecf586de441.pdf, p. 7
- [7] be47afabd7754e0af765-r1-e49a8ecf586de441.pdf, p. 9
What each side argues
Catholic Social Services (CSS)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
City of Philadelphia
The City argues that CSS’s refusal to certify same‑sex couples violates a non‑discrimination provision in its contract and the Fair Practices Ordinance, which serves compelling interests such as maximizing foster‑parent numbers and protecting the City from liability.
The City maintains that it has no intention of granting an exception to CSS under § 3.21, which allows discretionary exceptions at the Commissioner’s sole discretion.
The City argues that § 15.1 of its contract with CSS independently prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, creating a second generally applicable rule.
- [1] fefb7e7dfc9e60acdcf4-r1-7688ac1a239c89eb.pdf, p. 2
- [2] fefb7e7dfc9e60acdcf4-r1-7688ac1a239c89eb.pdf, p. 11
- [3] fefb7e7dfc9e60acdcf4-r1-7688ac1a239c89eb.pdf, p. 21
- [4] fefb7e7dfc9e60acdcf4-r1-7688ac1a239c89eb.pdf, p. 22
- [5] fefb7e7dfc9e60acdcf4-r1-7688ac1a239c89eb.pdf, p. 15
- [6] fefb7e7dfc9e60acdcf4-r1-7688ac1a239c89eb.pdf, p. 102
Petitioners (General)
Petitioners argue that the lower courts erred by applying Employment Division v. Smith to a situation where the government uses individualized exemptions that undermine the rule’s neutrality.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the case involves a clash between free‑exercise rights and the rights recognized in Obergefell.
According to Justice Thomas, justice Thomas inquired whether the dispute is a contractual relationship or a licensing case.
What the Court decided
The Court held that the contractual non‑discrimination requirement imposes a burden on CSS's religious exercise and does not qualify as generally applicable, so it cannot survive strict scrutiny.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s denial of preliminary relief.
Why it matters
The decision clarifies that a government‑mandated non‑discrimination rule that is not generally applicable may be subject to strict scrutiny when it burdens religious exercise.
Justice Alito argued that the precedent set by Employment Division v. Smith is “wrongly decided” and threatens fundamental religious freedom.
Amici and justices highlighted the broader impact on religious organizations that provide social services, noting that overturning Smith could affect many similar arrangements.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- be47afabd7754e0af765-r1-e49a8ecf586de441.pdforal argument transcript
- fefb7e7dfc9e60acdcf4-r1-7688ac1a239c89eb.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.