The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene Thursday in a legal battle between the city of Philadelphia and a Catholic foster agency that will not place foster children with same-sex couples.
Catholic Social Services asked the court in July to issue an injunction that would compel the city to resume placing children with its foster care program while litigation in the lower courts continued.
But in a loss to Catholic Social Services, the Supreme Court denied their request for an injunction. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch said they would have granted the request.
The case, however, could return to the Supreme Court.
Philadelphia halted foster care referrals to Catholic Social Services in March after learning the agency did not place foster children with same-sex couples because of its religious objections to same-sex marriage.
Catholic Social Services and a group of foster parents filed a lawsuit against the city in May, arguing Philadelphia’s freeze violated its First Amendment rights. A lower court ruled against the agency.
In its petition to Alito, Catholic Social Services argued the city’s freeze would force its foster care program to close.
“Philadelphia cannot demand that religious groups parrot its views as a pre-condition to serving foster children,” Catholic Social Services wrote on its request to the Supreme Court. “And it cannot retaliate against Catholic by shutting down Catholic’s foster care program and punishing existing foster families for working with Catholic—particularly because these already-certified families have nothing to do with Catholic’s future treatment of hypothetical inquiries.”
Catholic Social Services is one of 30 agencies in Philadelphia that provides services for foster parents and children.
In a brief filed with the Supreme Court, the city defended its decision to freeze placement of foster children with Catholic Social Services.
“Faced with longstanding First Amendment principles, CSS instead seeks its own constitutional right: a constitutional right to apply for a contract paid for by government funds, and then unilaterally rewrite the contract,” the city wrote. “This makes no sense as a matter of constitutional or contract law.”
