This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Fulton v. City of Philadelphia | |
|---|---|
| Case name | Fulton v. City of Philadelphia |
| Decided | June 17, 2021 |
| Citation | 593 U.S. ___ (2021) |
| Docket | 19-123 |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
| Holding | The city's refusal to contract with a religious foster care agency unless it agreed to certify same-sex couples violated the Free Exercise Clause. |
| Majority | Thomas |
| Joined by | unanimous in judgment; opinions varied |
| Laws | First Amendment (Free Exercise Clause) |
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia was a 2021 Supreme Court decision addressing the interaction of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, municipal contracting, and faith-based social services. The case arose from a dispute between the City of Philadelphia and Catholic Social Services regarding certification of same-sex couples as foster parents, implicating actors such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Court's opinion, delivered by Clarence Thomas, narrowed aspects of the Court's prior Free Exercise jurisprudence while avoiding a broad overruling of Employment Division v. Smith.
The facts began when Philadelphia ended a foster care placement contract with Catholic Social Services (U.S.) after the agency refused to certify same-sex couples, citing doctrines of the Catholic Church and guidance from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The dispute involved the city's Office of Children, Youth and Families and intersected with regulations under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act and local non-discrimination statutes. Parties included foster parents affected by placements, the City Solicitor of Philadelphia, and advocacy groups such as GLAAD and Lambda Legal. Underlying tensions reflected broader national debates featuring actors like Obergefell v. Hodges, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and litigation strategies used by the Becket Fund and the ACLU in religious liberty cases.
Litigation commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing violations of the Free Exercise Clause and the First Amendment's Free Exercise protections. The district court granted summary judgment for the city, relying on prior doctrine from Employment Division v. Smith and Masterpiece Cakeshop. The case progressed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the district court; the Third Circuit engaged with precedents including Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah and analyzed whether the city's policy constituted viewpoint discrimination akin to holdings in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. The petitioners sought certiorari, and the Supreme Court of the United States granted review amid amicus briefs from parties such as the National Association of Evangelicals, Human Rights Campaign, and several state attorneys general.
On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a judgment reversing the Third Circuit in an opinion by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. The Court held that the City's subcontracting requirement—mandating attestation to compliance with non-discrimination rules—targeted religious beliefs and practices and therefore required strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause. Although the Court ruled for the petitioners, the majority declined to overrule Employment Division v. Smith, emphasizing narrower grounds tied to Philadelphia's contractual practices and referring to aspects of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The judgment drew separate concurrences and joined opinions that discussed balancing principles from Sherbert v. Verner and statutory frameworks like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The Court's reasoning centered on the characterization of the city's policy as a system of discretionary exemptions that granted the Commissioner of Human Services the power to exempt contractors, thereby making the policy not neutral and generally applicable in the sense discussed in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah and Employment Division v. Smith. By highlighting the existence of exemptions and the role of discretion, the opinion invoked the strict scrutiny standard historically associated with Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder, though the Court eschewed an explicit blanket return to Sherbert. The decision has been read alongside precedents such as Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC to signal a strengthening of protections for religious actors operating in the public square, while the Court's narrow framing limited immediate doctrinal upheaval.
Reactions spanned elected officials, advocacy groups, and legal scholars. Supporters cited the decision as victory for religious liberty, with statements from entities like the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and certain state governments praising the ruling; opponents—including Lambda Legal and LGBTQ advocacy organizations—warned of harms to LGBTQ foster placement and reliance on non-discrimination protections invoked by municipal actors such as the Philadelphia City Council. Commentators in outlets referencing figures like Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh debated the decision's implications for church-state boundaries and for future disputes involving public benefits, zoning, and social services funded by municipal dollars.
Post-decision, litigants and municipalities adjusted contracting language and policies to avoid the discretion problems the Court identified, with cities revising clauses related to religious exemptions and certification processes, and state attorneys general issuing guidance informed by precedents like Employment Division v. Smith and Masterpiece Cakeshop. Subsequent and related litigation explored intersections with cases such as 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, Bostock v. Clayton County, and potential challenges invoking the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and state civil rights statutes. Scholars compared the doctrinal trajectory to earlier lines from Sherbert v. Verner and predicted casework implicating institutions like the Department of Health and Human Services and state child welfare agencies.