Christianity Today November 11, 2026 6 min signal 2026-11-11

Why ‘St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy’ could mark a huge win for religious freedom

Archived text mirror, captured for personal reading when the Signal ran. Formatting is approximate — read the original at the source.

Christianity Today

November 11, 2026

- Facebook

- X

- WhatsApp

- Telegram

Finn Gomez / Staff / Getty

The US Supreme Court heard a case last week that could shape the future of religious freedom in America. And if the justices’ questions were any indication, the court looks poised to deliver more robust protections for religious exercise while potentially discarding a nearly four-decade-old precedent in the process.

The case, St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, is straightforward. Colorado’s universal preschool program provides free preschool to children. To participate in the program, providers—both public and private—must sign a nondiscrimination agreement, requiring them to enroll students regardless of the sexual orientation and gender identity of students and their families. Some private religious providers objected to this requirement, arguing that enrolling children of same-sex couples could upset the religious environment of their schools. Colorado disagreed, claiming it should not be required to exempt religious schools from this requirement for public benefits.

To more fully understand the stakes of this case, we must go back to 1990, when the court decided Employment Division v. Smith. In that case, the court held that if a law that ends up burdening religion is both neutral and generally applicable—that is, it applies to everybody and doesn’t target religion—then states are not obligated to grant religious exemptions from that law. Smith was a departure from an earlier decision, Sherbert v. Verner, in which the court said that a state could only burden religion if it had a compelling interest in doing so.

Thanks for signing up.

Explore more newsletters—don’t forget to start your free 60-day trial of CT to get full access to all articles in every newsletter.

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

During last week’s oral argument, several justices expressed skepticism about Colorado’s nondiscrimination requirement. Justice Samuel Alito highlighted several recent decisions at the intersection of religious freedom and LGBTQ rights, pointing out these precedents support the parish’s exemption request. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether there was sufficient evidence of discrimination against LGBTQ families to warrant Colorado’s blanket policy precluding St. Mary’s from state funding. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, referenced the court’s past efforts to balance these sorts of questions:

One of the things that Obergefell and Masterpiece were very careful to say, though, that in recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, that the court was also respecting the rights of people, particularly religious people who had religious beliefs that were different, and that it was important going forward as a country to make sure both rights were respected.

Still, a few justices had concerns with St. Mary’s position. “Your bottom line,” Justice Sonya Sotomayor asked Nicholas Reaves, the parish’s attorney, “is your school can reject a child because their parents are homosexual?” She later wondered whether, under St. Mary’s position, a school could deny a student based on race or ethnicity.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was similarly concerned, questioning how this case would align with the diverse nature of American democracy:

I understand you’re trying to move Smith to the side, but it had some really serious concerns about religious entities not having to follow the law that everybody else is just because they hold sincerely held religious beliefs. It was like, how are you going to have a society where all people live and work together?

Importantly, some justices questioned whether Smith’s general applicability standard should remain the standard for free exercise cases. Justice Neil Gorsuch pondered whether Smith has already been effectively annulled via federal and state renditions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And Justice Elena Kagan asked Reaves directly whether Smith should control this case (and future ones), or whether the court should rely on cases that “look at the burden on religion from the perspective of the religious believer,” a la Sherbert.

In her reading of last week’s oral argument, law professor Stephanie Barclay predicted another recent decision may end up holding the answer to the present case. In 2022, the court handed down its decision in Carson v. Makin, ruling for families who wanted to send their children to sectarian schools using state funding. “A win under Carson,” Barclay wrote, “would be far more durable [than one under Smith]. It would hold that conditioning a public benefit on abandoning religious exercise triggers strict scrutiny, however the condition is drafted.” Triggering strict scrutiny—the most demanding standard of judicial review—requires the state to prove that its law or policy serves a compelling state interest, a high bar for government to meet.

Based on last week’s oral argument, there appear to be at least five—and likely six—justices poised to side with St. Mary Catholic Parish. The bigger question, then, is how the court will decide this case. Will the justices continue to diminish the Smith precedent, or even formally overturn it? Or will they strike a balance between Smith and Carson, leaving the older precedent in place while nodding to their more recent decision?

While the outcome of this case may appeal to some Christians more than others, the precedent it could set would be a win for everyone hoping for more robust protections for religious freedom. This might not settle questions at the heart of competing legal interests, but it would mark a return to a more faithful reading of what the First Amendment was supposed to accomplish in the first place—namely, protecting religious exercise, not just beliefs.

Daniel Bennett is professor of political science at John Brown University. He has written two books, Defending Faith: The Politics of the Christian Conservative Legal Movement and Uneasy Citizenship: Embracing the Tension in Faith and Politics.

- More from Daniel Bennett

- Facebook

- X

- WhatsApp

- Telegram

### In West Virginia v. B.P.J., SCOTUS Tackles Thorny Gender Debates Head-On

Daniel Bennett

### The Last Great Question of the Trump Presidency

Daniel Bennett

### What Christians Should Know About the Supreme Court’s ‘Landor’ Ruling

Daniel Bennett

### SCOTUS Ruling on ‘Conversion Therapy’ Is a Win for Christians