As Emily Gill pointed out in her OpEd in the July issue of Community Word on Fulton v Philadelphia, the stakes for this case were quite high. Not only was there a possibility of the court granting a “license to discriminate” to religiously-based foster agencies, but we could have seen a wholesale gutting of all kinds of nondiscrimination protections across the board. With a Supreme Court made up of six conservatives (three appointed by Donald Trump) and three liberals, Fulton was an ominous case for anyone concerned about the fair treatment of minorities, not just in terms of foster services, but in any and all aspects of public life.

Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of Catholic Social Services (CSS), that had alleged the City of Philadelphia had violated its religious liberty by ending a foster care contract as a result of CSS refusing to place children with same-sex parents. Fortunately, the ruling was exceptionally narrow. Rather than wading far into the question of religious liberty, the court instead tailored its decision to apply to the facts of this particular case, focusing on Philadelphia’s specific nondiscrimination policy. First, the majority opinion rejected the notion that foster services actually qualify as a public accommodation – to which Philly’s nondiscrimination ordinances apply specifically. Second, the contract between the city and CSS stipulated that exceptions to the policy could be granted, which ultimately opened the city to questions of why an exception had not been granted.

While the Court’s ruling was in CSS’s favor, it thankfully did not set any sweeping precedent undermining nondiscrimination laws. Optimistically speaking, it actually provided guidance about how – and how not to – craft and execute such laws. Hopefully cities and states will now be able to craft, or re-craft, policies that pass muster with the Court, while placing children-in-need with loving families, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents.

Ryan Reed, Edwards, IL