in the supreme court of the united states...no. 19‐123 in the supreme court of the united states...

No.19‐123

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

SHARONELLFULTON,ETAL.,Petitioners,

v.CITYOFPHILADELPHIA,ETAL.,

Respondents.

OnWritOfCertiorariToTheUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals

ForTheThirdCircuit

BRIEFOFADL(ANTI‐DEFAMATIONLEAGUE)ANDOTHERORGANIZATIONSASAMICICURIAEIN

SUPPORTOFRESPONDENTS

[AdditionalAmiciListedOnInsideCover]

ARNOLD&PORTERKAYESCHOLERLLPGILBERTR.SEROTAGilbert.Serota@arnoldporter.comCounselofRecordBENJAMINT.HALBIGThreeEmbarcaderoCenter10thFloorSanFrancisco,CA94111ADL(ANTI‐DEFAMATIONLEAGUE)‐STEVENM.FREEMANDAVIDBARKEYAMYFEINMANKARENLEVIT605ThirdAvenueNewYork,NY10158

attorneysForAmiciCuriae

AdditionalAmiciCuriae

BENDTHEARC:AJEWISHPARTNERSHIPFORJUSTICE•INTERFAITHALLIANCEFOUNDATION•JAPANESEAMERICANCITIZENSLEAGUE•JEWISHWOMEN

INTERNATIONAL•KESHET•NATIONALCOUNCILOFJEWISHWOMEN•OCA‐ASIANPACIFICAMERICANADVOCATES•PEOPLEFORTHEAMERICANWAY

FOUNDATION•THESIKHCOALITION•T’RUAH:THERABBINICCALLFORHUMANRIGHTS•TEXASIMPACT•TEXASINTERFAITHCENTERFORPUBLICPOLICY

i

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Page

INTERESTOFAMICI.......................................................................1

INTRODUCTIONANDSUMMARYOFARGUMENT.............1

ARGUMENT..........................................................................................4

I. ANEXEMPTIONFORFAITH‐BASEDVIOLATIONSWOULDHARMRELIGIOUSLIBERTY.....................................................................................4

II. PHILADELPHIA’SANTI‐DISCRIMINATIONREQUIREMENTSSHOULDNOTBESUBJECTTOSTRICTSCRUTINYBECAUSETHEYARENEUTRALANDDONOTTARGETRELIGIONORRELIGIOUSBELIEF......................................................10

III. ADOPTION,INVESTIGATION,ANDENFORCEMENTOFANTI‐DISCRIMINATIONLAWSSHOULDNOTBECONSIDEREDTARGETTINGOFRELIGIONORRELIGIOUSPRACTICESUFFICIENTTOTRIGGERSTRICTSCRUTINY...............................................................................12

A. TheLawinQuestionCannotbeCharacterizedAsTargetingReligion,ReligiousBelieforReligiousPractices..........13

B. InvestigationandEnforcementofAnti‐DiscriminationLawsAgainstReligious‐AffiliatedEntitiesShouldNotBeABasisforStrictScrutinyReview.......................15

ii

TABLEOFCONTENTS(cont’d)

Page

IV. ANTI‐DISCRIMINATIONLAWSEMBODYAPUBLICPOLICYOFTHEHIGHESTORDERANDTHE‘LESSRESTRICTIVEMEANS’ARGUMENTADVANCEDBYPETITIONERSWOULDCONDONEDISCRIMINATIONONTHEBASISOFRELIGIONANDOTHERPROTECTEDCATEGORIES..............................................18

A. CombattingDiscriminationIsAPublicInterestoftheHighestOrder.............................19

B. CondoningDiscriminationThroughAnExemptionforPetitionersIsNotaProper“LessRestrictiveMeans.”.....................20

V. MANDATINGTHEEXEMPTIONSOUGHTBYPETITIONERSWOULDVIOLATETHEESTABLISHMENTCLAUSE..............................................22

CONCLUSION....................................................................................24

APPENDIXAPPENDIX:AmiciCuriaeStatementsOfInterest......1a

iii

TABLEOFAUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Bd.ofEduc.ofKiryasJoelVillageSch.Dist.v.Grumet,512U.S.687(1994).................................................................23

Burwellv.HobbyLobbyStores,Inc.,573U.S.682(2014).................................................................21

ChristianLegalSoc’yv.Hastings,561U.S.661(2010).................................................................13

ChurchoftheLukumiBabaluAye,Inc.v.CityofHialeah,508U.S.520(1993)..........................................10,13,15,19

Corp.ofthePresidingBishopv.Amos,483U.S.327(1987).................................................................11

Cutterv.Wilkinson,544U.S.709(2005).................................................................24

Dumontv.Lyon,341F.Supp.3d706(E.D.Mich.2018).............................23

EEOCv.TownleyEng’gandMfg.Co.,859F.2d610(9thCir.1988)................................................9

Emp’tDiv.,Dep’tofHumanRes.ofOr.v.Smith,494U.S.872(1990)..................................................11,12,17

Espinozav.Mont.Dep’tofRevenue,140S.Ct.2246(2020)....................................................10,17

iv

TABLEOFAUTHORITIES(cont’d)

Page(s)

EstateofThorntonv.Calder,472U.S.703(1985).................................................................23

Fultonv.CityofPhiladelphia,320F.Supp.3d661(E.D.Pa.2018),aff’d,922F.3d140(3dCir.2019).......................14,15,16

Gonzalesv.OCentroEspiritaBeneficenteUniaoDoVegetal,546U.S.418(2006).................................................................11

Holtv.Hobbs,574U.S.352(2015).................................................................21

Hosanna‐TaborEvangelicalLutheranChurchandSch.v.EEOC,565U.S.171(2012).................................................................11

Huriv.OfficeoftheChiefJudgeoftheCircuitCourt,804F.3d826(7thCir.2015)......................................11,12

Hurleyv.Irish‐Am.Gay,LesbianandBisexualGrp.,515U.S.557(1995).................................................................13

JuneMed.Servs.v.Russo,140S.Ct.2103(2020)(Roberts,C.J.concurring)..................................................................................11

Khedrv.IHOPRests.,LLC,197F.Supp.3d384(D.Conn.2016)..................................9

v


Page(s)

Leev.Weisman,505U.S.577(1992).................................................................23

Maddonnav.U.S.Dep’tofHealthandHumanServices,No.6:19cv03551(D.S.C.August10,2020),https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/2020‐08/U.S.%20District%20Court%2C%20S.C.%2C%20Opinion%20Maddonna%20v.%20HHS%208.10.20.pdf..........................................................................23

MasterpieceCakeshop,Ltd.,v.Colo.CivilRightsComm’n,138S.Ct.1719(2018)............................................................13

Minn.exrel.McLurev.Sports&HealthClub,Inc.,370N.W.2d844(Minn.1985)..............................................8

Nappiv.HollandChristianHomeAss’n,No.11‐cv‐2832,2015WL5023007(D.N.J.Aug.21,2015)................................................................9

Obergefell.Romerv.Evans,517U.S.620(1996)...................................................................6

Obergefellv.Hodges,135S.Ct.2584(2015)..............................................................6

vi


Page(s)

Paletzv.Adaya,No.B247184,2014WL7402324(Cal.Ct.App.Dec.29,2014)..............................................................9

Smithv.FairEmp’t&Hous.Comm’n,12Cal.4th1143(1996).........................................................21

SouthBayPentecostalChurchv.Newsom,140S.Ct.1613(2020)(Roberts,C.J.concurring)..................................................................................11

Swannerv.AnchorageEqualRightsComm’n,874P.2d274(Alaska1994).........................................21,22

TexasMonthly,Inc.v.Bullock,489U.S.1(1989)...............................................................23,24

TrinityLutheranChurchv.Comer,137S.Ct.2012(2017)............................................................17

UnitedStatesv.Lee,455U.S.252(1982)(Stevens,J.concurring)..................................................................................11

Statutes

FortWorth,Tex.,CityCode§17‐48(a)(1).............................14

IowaCode§216.7............................................................................14

Jacksonville,Fla.,CodeofOrdinances§406.201......................................................................................14

vii


Page(s)

Mass.Gen.Lawsch.272§98......................................................14

Me.Rev.Stat.tit.5§4592.............................................................14

Minn.Stat.§363A.11......................................................................14

Muncie,Ind.,CodeofOrdinances§34.87...........................................................................................14

N.M.Stat.§28‐1‐7(F)......................................................................14

Nev.Rev.Stat.§651.070...............................................................14

OmahaNeb.,CodeofOrdinances,§13‐84...........................................................................................14

Phila.Code.§9‐1100........................................................................................14§9‐1106(1)..................................................................................13

Phoenix,Ariz.,CityCode§18‐1.................................................14

WashRev.Code§49.60.215........................................................14

OtherAuthorities

1HopeforKids,FosterCareQualifications,https://1hopeforkids.org/foster‐care‐and‐adoption(lastvisitedAugust14,2020)............................8

viii


Page(s)

AmericansUnitedforSeparationofChurchandState,Maddonnav.DepartmentofHealth&HumanServices:CaseBackground,https://www.au.org/tags/maddonna‐v‐dept‐of‐health‐and‐human‐services...................................7

ADL,AntisemiticIncidentsHitAll‐TimeHighin2019(May12,2020),https://www.adl.org/news/press‐releases/antisemitic‐incidents‐hit‐all‐time‐high‐in‐2019......................................................................5

ChristianHeritage,FosterParentInquiryForm,https://www.chne.org/foster_care/contact.html(lastvisitedAugust14,2020).........................................................................8

LydiaCurrie,IwasbarredfrombecomingafosterparentbecauseIamJewish(Feb.5,2019,5:46p.m.),https://www.jta.org/2019/02/05/opinion/i‐was‐barred‐from‐becoming‐a‐foster‐parent‐because‐i‐am‐jewish....................................7

AngeliaDavis,ScrutinyofMiracleHill’sFaithBasedApproachReachesNewLevel,GreenvilleNews(March1,2018),https://www.greenvilleonline.com....................................7

ix


Page(s)

KennethC.Davis,ReligiousTolerance,SmithsonianMag.(Oct.2010),https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas‐true‐history‐of‐religious‐tolerance‐61312684/.......................................4,5

FaithBridgeFosterCare,FosterParentRequirements,https://www.faithbridgefostercare.org/blog/2017/11/1460/(lastvisitedJuly30,2020).........................................................................................8

Maddonnav.DepartmentofHealth&HumanServices:CaseBackground,https://www.au.org/tags/maddonna‐v‐dept‐of‐health‐and‐human‐services...............................7

JuliaTeruso,Cityresumesfoster‐careworkwithBethanyChristianServicesafteritagreestoworkwithsame‐sexcouples,PhiladelphiaInquirer(June28,2018).............................20

U.S.Comm’nonCivilRights,PeacefulCoexistence:ReconcilingNondiscriminationPrincipleswithCivilLiberties,https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/docs/Peaceful‐Coexistence‐09‐07‐16.PDF.................................................................6,19,21

x


Page(s)

KellyWeill,MoreThan500AttacksonMuslimsinAmericaThisYear,DailyBeast(May21,2019),https://www.thedailybeast.com/more‐than‐500‐attacks‐on‐muslims‐in‐america‐this‐year........................................................................5

INTERESTOFAMICI1

Amici curiae are a diverse group of religious andreligiouslyaffiliatedcivilrightsandculturalorganizationsthat advocate for religious freedom, tolerance, equalityandjusticeforall.Amicihaveastronginterestinthiscasedue to theircommitment toreligious liberty,civilrights,and equal protection of law. Identity and InterestStatements of particular amici can be found in theAppendixtothisbrief.

INTRODUCTIONANDSUMMARYOFARGUMENT

This case presents the question whether the FreeExerciseClauseof theFirstAmendment requires that afostercareagencyprovidingservicesunderacitycontractmust be exempt from the Philadelphia’s anti‐discriminationlawsothatitmayrefusetoconsidersame‐sex couples as foster parents because of its religiousopposition to same‐sex marriage. The organizationssubmittingthisamicusbrief,ledbyADL(Anti‐DefamationLeague),arestrongadvocatesforreligiousfreedom.Theyare also strong advocates for the fair, just, and equaltreatmentofall.TheybelievethattheFirstAmendmentisashieldwhichprotectsreligiousbeliefandpractice,notasword allowing religion to thwart the rights of thirdparties and undermine the protection of a city’s anti‐discriminationlaws.

Asdiscussedinthesectionsbelow,Petitioners’demandforareligiousexemption from theCityofPhiladelphia’s

1Writtenconsenttothisbriefhasbeengrantedbyallparties.No

counselforapartyauthoredthisbriefinwholeorinpart,andnopartyorcounselforapartymadeamonetarycontributionintendedtofunditspreparationorsubmission.Nopersonotherthanamiciandtheircounsel made a monetary contribution to the preparation orsubmissionofthisbrief.

2

anti‐discrimination law should be rejected. It is notmandated by the Free Exercise Clause because thatordinanceisaneutralandgenerallyapplicableprohibitionofdiscriminatorypractices,whethermotivatedbyreligionorotherreasons.

The exemption demanded byPetitionerswould havedirepublicpolicyconsequences.Itwouldopenthedoortoawidevarietyofdemandsforreligious‐basedexceptionsto theenforcementofanti‐discrimination laws. Itwouldharm not only same‐sex couples, but also sanctiondiscrimination based on religious identity, includingagainst religiousminorities. Itwould restrict access totaxpayer‐fundedservicesprovidedbyprivate,religiously‐affiliatedagencies,suchasfoodbanks,healthcareclinics,andhomelessshelters.Asaresult,itwouldunderminetheeffectiveness of legislation adopted throughout thecountry designed to promote justice, equality, and fairtreatmenttoall.

Philadelphia’s Fair Practices Ordinance, which barsdiscrimination in public accommodations based onreligion,ethnicity,race,andsexualorientationisidenticaltodozensoflawsenactedbycitiesandstatesacrossournation.Neitherthoseanti‐discriminationprohibitionsnorefforts by cities to investigate and enforce them canreasonably be construed as targeting a religion or areligiousbelieforpractice.The“hostility”evidentinthoselawsandtheirenforcement,ifany,isnottowardreligion,buttowarddiscriminationagainstprotectedcategoriesofpeople.As such, these general andneutral laws arenotsubjecttoastrictscrutinystandardofreview.

Even if the Courtwere to analyze the application ofthese anti‐discrimination requirements to Petitionersundera“strictscrutiny”standard,theywouldnonethelesspass muster. There is a compelling need for statutoryprotectionofmembersofmarginalizedcommunitieswho

3

have historically experienced widespread and extremediscrimination.Biasinconsiderationasfosteroradoptiveparentsisjustoneexampleofsuchdiscrimination,whichhas extended to employment, housing, and goods andservices, andwhich has harmed religiousminorities aswellastheLGBTQ+community.

Amici disagree with the contention that permittingagencies to refuse to serve same‐sex couples so longasthey refer them to another agency is a “less restrictivemeans”offurtheringthisgovernmentinterest.Theinjurythesecouplessufferoccursat themoment that theyaredeniedfairconsiderationasfosterparentsonthebasisoftheir sexual orientation.Being told that another agencywillconsiderthemdoesnotcuretheharm.

Petitioners’argumentthatareferraltoanotheragencyavoids or cures suchharmmisconstrues the concept of“lessrestrictivemeans.”ThisCourthasheldthatanysuch“means”mustbeconsistentwiththeachievementofthepublicpolicygoalof the law inquestionandmustavoidharmtothirdparties.Theargumentadvancedinthiscasefailstomeetthisstandard.

The mandatory exemption for religious‐baseddiscrimination sought by Petitioners would effectivelyrequirecitiesandstatestocondonetheveryactstheyseekto prohibit through anti‐discrimination laws andordinances. The protection afforded to vulnerablereligious and other minorities by such laws andordinanceswouldno longerbe certain andpredictable,but uncertain and dependent on case‐by‐casedeterminationsaboutthenatureandoriginsofreligiousobjections and the scope of exemption applied in anyparticularcase.

Forthesereasons,asmorefullyexplainedbelow,amiciurgetheCourttoaffirmthejudgmentbelow.

4

ARGUMENT

I.ANEXEMPTIONFORFAITH‐BASEDVIOLATIONS

WOULDHARMRELIGIOUSLIBERTY

Anti‐discrimination laws, such as Philadelphia’s FairPractices Ordinance, have advanced this country’scommitment toequalityand justice forallpeople.Theyserveanimportantpurposeconsistentwithpublicpolicy:protectionagainstdiscriminationintheprovisionofgoodsand services to the public, regardless of whether thediscriminationhasitsrootsinsecularorreligiousmotives.

These laws have changed the course of Americanhistoryandmademajorstrides inreversingcenturiesofdiscrimination and oppression against religiousminorities.Asearlyas the firstmeetingofEuropeans inpresent‐day America, a group of Spanish citizensmassacred a colony of French Protestants seekingreligious freedombecausethecolonists“werescatteringtheodiousLutherandoctrineintheseProvinces.”KennethC. Davis, America’s True History of Religious Tolerance,Smithsonian Mag. (Oct. 2010),https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas‐true‐history‐of‐religious‐tolerance‐61312684/.

ThePuritans,who themselves came toour shores toescapereligiouspersecution,inturnfounded“atheocracythatbrookednodissent,religiousorpolitical.”Id.Catholicsandothernon‐Puritanswerebannedfromthecolonies.Id.InNewYork,Catholicswereconstitutionallybarredfrompublicoffice.Id.MarylandgrantedCatholicsfullcivilrightsbutdidnotextendthosesamerightstoJews.Id.

In1844,anti‐Catholicandanti‐immigrantsentimentinPhiladelphialedtotheBibleRiots.TwoCatholicchurchesweredestroyedandatleasttwentypeoplewerekilled.Id.

5

Persecution and targeting of religious minoritiespersist to this day. In 2019, the American Jewishcommunityexperiencedthehighestlevelofanti‐Semitismever recorded,2 and the American Muslim communitysuffered over500 attacks in the first sixmonths of theyear.3

Anti‐discriminationordinancesandstatuteshavebeenwidely adopted throughout the country, in part as aresponsetopersistentdiscrimination intheprovisionofgoodsandservices.Theselawsaregeneralandneutralincharacter,andthereisnoevidencethattheywereadoptedwith any intent to target religion.To the contrary, suchlawsareeffortstoprotectreligiousminoritiesandothervulnerablegroups.

Stateandlocalgovernmentsshouldnotberequiredtoprovide special treatment to religious organizations byallowingthoseorganizationstodiscriminateinprovidinggoodsorservices to thepublicorwhenadministeringapublic service, when non‐religious organizationsproviding the same goods or services are boundnot todiscriminate.

Amandatoryexemptionforreligious‐basedobjectionswouldopen thedoornotonly todiscriminationagainstsame‐sex couples, but also religious minorities andmembers of other marginalized groups. It would gobeyondjustfostercareandwouldextendtoawidearrayofpublicservicesofferedbyprivateagencies,suchasfood

2ADL,Antisemitic IncidentsHitAll‐TimeHigh in 2019 (May 12,

2020) https://www.adl.org/news/press‐releases/antisemitic‐incidents‐hit‐all‐time‐high‐in‐2019.

3KellyWeill,MoreThan500AttacksonMuslims inAmericaThisYear, Daily Beast (May 21, 2019),https://www.thedailybeast.com/more‐than‐500‐attacks‐on‐muslims‐in‐america‐this‐year.

6

banks, homeless shelters, or health care clinics. It isdoubtful that therewouldbearationale for limiting theexemptiontotaxpayer‐fundedservices.Privatebusinesseswith religious objections to serving certain classes ofpeoplealsowouldclaimtobeexemptedfromcompliancewithanti‐discriminationlawsandprohibitions.

“Religious liberty was never intended to give onereligiondominionoverotherreligionsoravetopowerofthecivilrightsandcivillibertiesofothers.”U.S.Comm’nonCivil Rights, Peaceful Coexistence: ReconcilingNondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties, at 29(2016)[hereinafter2016ReportofU.S.Comm’nonCivilRights], https://www.usccr. gov/pubs/docs/Peaceful‐Coexistence‐09‐07‐16.PDF.4

The harm that will be caused to prospective fosterparents by mandating religious exemptions under thecircumstancespresentedbythecaseatbarisnotmerelytheoretical.Numerousreligiousfostercareagencieshavepubliclystatedtheirintentiontodenyservicesbasednotonlyonthefosterparents’sexualorientationbutalsoonthebasisoftheirreligiousaffiliation.Asof2016,atleastfivestatelegislatureswereconsideringlimitingtherightsofsamesexcouplesand individualstoadoptchildrenorprovide fostercare.2016ReportofU.S.Comm’nonCivilRights,supra,at32,37.

Discrimination intheprovisionoffosterandadoptivecareisnotlimitedtosexualorientation.InSouthCarolina,

4PetitionerscitethedissentingopinioninObergefellv.Hodges,135

S.Ct.2584,2626(2015)andimplythatthisdisputeistheinevitableconsequenceofthatdecision.Pet.Br.at20.That,however,isnotthecase. Philadelphia’s prohibition on discrimination based on sexualorientation preceded Obergefell, and this Court struck down stateattempts to deny application of non‐discrimination laws to LGBTcitizens as adenial of equalprotection adecadebeforeObergefell.Romerv.Evans,517U.S.620(1996).

7

for example, a Jewish woman sought to mentor localchildren in foster care through the Miracle Hillorganizationafterhavingbeena fosterparent inFloridafortenyears.Shewasrefusedanapplication,however,forthesolereasonthatshe“didnotsharetheorganization’sChristianbeliefs.”5ThatsameagencyrefusedtoworkwithaprospectivefosterparentbecauseofherCatholicfaith.6AnotherJewishfamilywasbarredfromconsiderationbyMiracleHillandvividlydescribeditsexclusionarypoliciesina2019magazinearticle.7

5SeeAngeliaDavis,ScrutinyofMiracleHill’sFaithBasedApproach

Reaches New Level, Greenville News (March 1, 2018),https://www.greenvilleonline.com.

6AmericansUnitedforSeparationofChurchandState,Maddonnav. Department of Health & Human Services: Case Background,https://www.au.org/tags/maddonna‐v‐dept‐of‐health‐and‐human‐services.

7 “Thispublicly subsidized fosterprogram isunwilling toplacechildrenwithJewish,Catholic,Muslim,Buddhist,Hindu,atheistandagnosticwould‐beparents.Theirinitialscreeningform,nowavailableonline,asks forthecontact informationofyourpastorandthatyoutestifytoyoursalvationinthetextboxprovided.”LydiaCurrie,Iwasbarred from becominga fosterparent because Iam Jewish, (Feb.5,2019, 5:46 p.m.), https://www.jta.org/2019/02/05/opinion/i‐was‐barred‐from‐becoming‐a‐foster‐parent‐because‐i‐am‐jewish.

8

Fostercareagenciesin,Georgia8,Nebraska9andTexas10imposereligiousrequirementsonprospectiveparentsandexplicitlystatethattheywillnotworkwithindividualsorcoupleswhodonotadheretothoserequirements.

Broadly applied exemptionsbasedon religiousbeliefwould put at issue hard fought legal and legislativevictoriesagainstprejudiceanddiscrimination.Casesfromcourts across the country show that,but for civil rightsprotections like Philadelphia’s Fair PracticesOrdinance,membersofminority faithswould sufferdiscriminationwithoutrecourse.

Asimilarlaw,Minnesota’sHumanRightsAct,hasbeenheldtobarahealthclubfromallowing“onlyborn‐againChristians. . .tobemanagersorassistantmanagers”andfrom“question[ing]prospectiveemployeesaboutmaritalstatus and religion,” and “terminat[ing] employeesbecause of a difference in religious beliefs.” The gymownersinthatcasesoughttodefendtheiractionsbecauseoftheir“religiousbeliefthattheyareforbiddenbyGod,assetforthintheBible,toworkwith‘unbelievers.’”Minn.ex

8 FaithBridge Foster Care, Foster Parent Requirements,

https://www.faithbridgefostercare.org/blog/2017/11/1460/ (lastvisitedJuly30,2020)(requiringfosterparentapplicantsto“[b]eanactive member of a local, Christian church, and demonstrate acommitmenttoJesusChristinyourdailylifeandinyourhome”).

9ChristianHeritage,FosterParentInquiryForm,https://www.chne.org/foster_care/contact.html(lastvisitedAugust14,2020)(Aresponseisrequiredforthequestion“[d]oyouattendchurch”).

10 1Hope for Kids, Foster Care Qualifications,https://1hopeforkids.org/foster‐care‐and‐adoption (last visitedAugust 14, 2020) (Requires a “foster/adopt parent . . . to[d]emonstrate a lifestyle that embraces the basic tenets of theChristianfaith,includinginvolvementinalocalchurch”).

9

rel.McLurev.Sports&HealthClub,Inc.,370N.W.2d844,846‐47(Minn.1985).

California’s public accommodations anti‐discriminationlawhasbeenheldtoprohibitahotelownerfrom closing a poolside social event after the ownerdiscovered itwashostedby a Jewish group.Theownerclaimedthatherfamilywouldcutofffundingforthehotelif they learned she allowed Jews on the property. Shedirected her staff to forcibly remove Jews from thepremises.Paletzv.Adaya,No.B247184,2014WL7402324(Cal.Ct.App.Dec.29,2014).

An identical law in Connecticut was held to bar arestaurantownerfromrefusingtoservefoodtoaMuslimfamilybyorderinghisstaff,infrontofa12‐yearoldguest,“nottoserve‘thesepeople’anyfood.”Khedrv.IHOPRests.,LLC,197F.Supp.3d384,385(D.Conn.2016).

InNappiv.HollandChristianHomeAssociation,No.11‐cv‐2832 (CCC‐JBC), 2015WL 5023007 (D.N.J. Aug. 21,2015),theCourtfoundaTitleVIIviolationwhenaCatholicmaintenanceworkerwasterminatedafterbeingharassedby Protestant and Reformed Christian co‐workerswhocalled Catholicism a “Mickey Mouse religion” anddenigratedCatholicsforworshipingsaints.

The Seventh Circuit found an analogous Title VIIviolationbyCourtemployeesinIllinois,whoharassedandshunnedaMuslimchild‐careattendantwhoworeahijabtowork.Huriv.OfficeoftheChiefJudgeoftheCircuitCourt,804F.3d826(7thCir.2015).

TheNinthCircuitrejectedaFreeExercisedefensebyacompanythatconstructivelydischargedanatheistworkerbecausetheownersbelievedthat“Godrequiredthemtoshare the Gospel with all of their employees.” EEOC v.TownleyEngineeringandManuf.Co.,859F.2d610,620(9thCir.1988).

10

These cases demonstrate that religious minoritiescontinue to face widespread discrimination and thatcourts enforce anti‐discrimination laws even when abusiness or agency defends its discriminatory actionsbasedonreligiousbeliefs.Openingthedoortofaith‐basedexemptions from these laws would harm religiousfreedom by undermining their effectiveness andpromotingdiscriminationinsteadofdiscouragingit.

II.PHILADELPHIA’SANTI‐DISCRIMINATION

REQUIREMENTSSHOULDNOTBESUBJECTTOSTRICTSCRUTINYBECAUSETHEYARENEUTRALANDDONOTTARGETRELIGIONORRELIGIOUS

BELIEF.

Acentralquestioninthiscaseisthestandardofreviewthat the Courtmust applywhen facedwith a religious‐basedobjectiontoananti‐discriminationlaw.Petitioners’assertion that strict scrutiny should apply toPhiladelphia’sapplicationofitsanti‐discriminationlawsiserroneous andwould undermine important protectionsforreligiousandothervulnerableminorities.

The strict scrutiny standard applies to laws whoseobjectis“toinfringeuponorrestrictpracticesbecauseoftheirreligiousmotivation....”ChurchoftheLukumiBabaluAye,Inc.v.CityofHialeah,508U.S.520,533(1993).TheCourtimposesa“strictscrutiny”standard,whenthelawin question imposes “special disabilities” based onreligious identityorstatus.Espinozav.MontanaDep’tofRevenue,140S.Ct.2246,2254‐57(2020).

Strictscrutinydoesnotapplyto lawsthatareneutralandofgeneralapplicability.ThatstandardshouldnotbeappliedtoPhiladelphia’sFairPracticesOrdinanceortothedozensofsimilarstatutesthroughoutthecountry.Suchalaw“neednotbe justifiedbyacompellinggovernmental

11

interest even if the law has the incidental effect ofburdeningaparticularreligiouspractice.”Lukumi,608U.S.at531.

“[A]validandneutrallawofgeneralapplicability”isnotsubjecttochallengeundertheFreeExerciseClauseevenifit “proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religionprescribes (or proscribes).” Emp’t Div., Dep’t of HumanResources of Oregon v. Smith, 494U.S. 872, 879 (1990)(quotingUnitedStatesv.Lee,455U.S.252,263n.3(1982)(Stevens,J.concurring))11.SeealsoSouthBayPentecostalChurchv.Newsom,140S.Ct.1613,1613(2020)(Roberts,C.J.,concurring)(limitationsonreligiousworshipdue toCovid‐19shelter inplaceorders“appearconsistentwiththe Free Exercise Clause” where the facts show that“[s]imilarormoresevererestrictionsapplytocomparableseculargatherings”);Hosanna‐TaborEvangelicalLutheranChurch and Sch. v.EEOC,565U.S.171,190 (2012) (the“rightoffreeexercisedoesnotrelieveanindividualoftheobligation to comply with a valid and neutral law ofgeneralapplicability . . .”)(internalquotationmarksandcitationomitted);Gonzalesv.OCentroEspiritaBeneficenteUniaoDoVegetal,546U.S.418,424 (2006)(“[T]heFreeExerciseClause . . .doesnotprohibitgovernments fromburdeningreligiouspracticesthroughgenerallyapplicablelaws.”).12

11 Smith is compelling precedent that this Court should not

overrulebasedonthecircumstancespresentedhere.SeeJuneMedicalServices v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103, 2134‐35 (2020) (Roberts, C.J.concurring).

12Thepositionofamici isnot inconsistentwitheitherHosanna‐Tabor,565U.S.171orCorporationofthePresidingBishopv.Amos,483U.S. 327 (1987). While both of these cases uphold religiousexemptionstolawsofgeneralapplication(ADAinHosannaandTitle

(...continued)

12

AsobservedinSmith,thisCourthas“neverheldthatanindividual’sreligiousbeliefsexcusehimfromcompliancewithanotherwisevalidlawprohibitingconductthattheStateisfreetoregulate.”494U.S.at878‐79.TotheextentSmith rejects the strict scrutiny of laws of generalapplication that protect vulnerable minorities fromdiscrimination, this Court should reject Petitioners’argumentthatitshouldbemodifiedoroverturned.

III.ADOPTION,INVESTIGATION,AND

ENFORCEMENTOFANTI‐DISCRIMINATIONLAWSSHOULDNOTBECONSIDEREDTARGETTINGOFRELIGIONORRELIGIOUSPRACTICESUFFICIENT

TOTRIGGERSTRICTSCRUTINY.

PetitionersseektoimposeastrictscrutinystandardofreviewbasedonthenatureofthelawinquestionandonPhiladelphia’sinvestigationofCSS,itsattempttoconvinceCSS tocomplywith the law,and itsultimatedecision toterminate CSS’s foster care contract in order to protectPhiladelphians from discrimination. Reliance on thesefactstoimposestrictscrutinyshouldberejected.

As neither the nature of the law adopted byPhiladelphia nor its investigation and enforcementpracticestargetpetitioners’religiousbeliefsorpractices,theydonottriggerastrictscrutinyreview.

VII inAmos),neitherofthesecases involvedanexemptionallowingreligious beliefs to harm third parties. Instead, each case involved“internalgovernanceofthechurch.”Hosanna‐Tabor,565U.S.at188.Petitionersheredonotassertthatthequestionofdiscriminationatissuearosefromorisconfinedtointernalchurchaffairs.

13

A. The Law in Question Cannot be Characterized As Targeting Religion, Religious Belief or Religious Practices.

ThelanguageofPhiladelphia’sFairPracticesOrdinancecannot fairly be characterized as in any way targetingreligion, religious belief, or religious practice. ThatOrdinanceprohibitsdiscriminationonthebasisof“race,ethnicity, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,religion,nationalorigin,ancestry,disability,maritalstatus,familial status, or domestic or sexual violence victimstatus”inthedeliveryofCityservicesortheprovisionofpublicaccommodations.Phila.Code.§9‐1106(1)

Anti‐discriminationstatutessuchastheOrdinanceare“well within the State’s usual power to enact when alegislaturehasreasontobelievethatagivengroupisthetargetofdiscrimination....”Hurleyv.Irish‐AmericanGay,LesbianandBisexualGrp.,515U.S.557,572(1995).Theyare“contentandviewpointneutral.”ChristianLegalSoc’yv. Hastings, 561 U.S. 661, 699 (2010) (Stevens, J.concurring).

Whetherappliedtoprotectreligiousminoritiesorsamesexcouples, these lawsstrikeaproperbalance.Theydonotprohibitorimpedereligiousandphilosophicalbelief,butthey“donotallowbusinessownersandotheractorsintheeconomytodenyprotectedpersonsequalaccesstogoodsandservices....”MasterpieceCakeshop,Ltd.,v.Colo.CivilRightsComm’n,138S.Ct.1719,1727(2018).

PetitionersrepeatedlyciteLukumiassupportfortheirargumentthatPhiladelphia’santi‐discriminationlawsandcontractlanguagetargettheirreligiousbeliefsandrequirestrict scrutiny. In Lukumi, however, the city“gerrymandered”anewlawdesignedtoimpedeaspecificreligiouspracticebyanunpopularreligion,whileleavingoutsidethelawsimilarsecularpractices.

14

Here the languageadoptedbyPhiladelphia in itsFairPractices Ordinance can be found in dozens of similarprovisions around the country enacted to prohibitdiscriminationintheprovisionof“publicaccommodation”on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, and sexualorientation.13

Cities as diverse as FortWorth, Texas14, Jacksonville,Florida15, Muncie, Indiana16, Omaha, Nebraska17, andPhoenix, Arizona18, have adopted virtually identicalstatutes. So, too, have states, such as Iowa19, Maine20,Massachusetts21, Minnesota22, Nevada23, New Mexico24,andWashington.25

Philadelphia’sadoptionof languagegenerallyused toprohibitdiscriminationnegatesany factualargumentor

13 Philadelphia defines “public accommodation” to include any

business“whichsolicitsoracceptspatronageortradeofthepublicorwhose…services,facilities…areextended,offeredorotherwisemadeavailable to the public.” Chapter 9‐1100 of the Philadelphia Code,whichtheDistrictCourtfoundtocoverthefostercareservicesofferedbyPetitionerCSS.Fultonv.CityofPhiladelphia,320F.Supp.3d661,679(E.D.Pa.2018),aff’d,922F.3d140(3dCir.2019).

14FortWorth,Tex.,CityCode§17‐48(a)(1). 15Jacksonville,Fla.,CodeofOrdinances§406.201.16Muncie,Ind.,CodeofOrdinances§34.87.17OmahaNeb.,CodeofOrdinances,§13‐84.18Phoenix,Ariz.,CityCode§18‐1.19IowaCode§216.7.20Me.Rev.Stat.tit.5§4592.21Mass.Gen.Lawsch.272§98.22Minn.Stat.§363A.11.23Nev.Rev.Stat.§651.070.24N.M.Stat.§28‐1‐7(F).25WashRev.Code§49.60.215.

15

legalconclusionthatthelawatissueherewasformulatedto target Petitioners based on their religious beliefs.Lukumi,therefore,isinapposite.

B. Investigation and Enforcement of Anti-Discrimination Laws Against Religious-Affiliated Entities Should Not Be A Basis for Strict Scrutiny Review.

Petitioners impugn as “hostile” andnot “neutral” theCity’sinvestigation,negotiation,andconsiderationofthefacts of CSS’s blanket refusal to work with same‐sexcouples which came to light through an investigativejournalist’s reporting. See Fulton v. City of Philadelphia,320F.Supp.3d661,672,690(E.D.Pa.2018),aff’d922F.3d140 (3d Cir. 2019) (finding insufficient evidence oftargeting CSS on the basis of religious hostility).Petitioners’ argument fails to accurately portray therecorddevelopedbelowandraisesseriouspublicpolicyconcerns.

The District Court made findings of fact after anevidentiaryhearing thatPhiladelphiadidnot targetCSSbecauseofitsreligiousbeliefsandhad,infact,expresseda“preference for continuing their relationship with[Petitioner] CSS” if it would comply with its contractresponsibilities.Id.at674.

Petitioners’“hostility”argumentattacksPhiladelphia’sefforttoinvestigateandenforcethelaw.See,e.g.,Pet.Br.at23‐25.That argument represents a threat to good faithinvestigations by local governments. By its nature, aninquiry about a suspected violation of an anti‐discrimination law can almost always be viewed assingling out or even targeting the subject(s) of theinvestigation.

16

Governmentsmustbeentitledtoinvestigateviolationsoftheiranti‐discrimination laws,whetherthetarget isareligiousorsecularinstitutionandwhethertheviolationinvolves same sex couples or instances of religiousdiscriminationagainstHindus,Jews,Muslimsormembersofotherfaiths.Anythinglesswouldbeaviolationoftheirdutytofaithfullyenforcethelaw.Citiesandstatesshouldbeabletodosowithoutfearthatthe investigation itselfwillbe treatedasevidenceofhostility to the institutionbeinginvestigated.

Accepting Petitioners’ argument that the City’sinvestigationofCSSandefforts toconvince it tocomplywiththelawissufficientevidenceoftargetingreligionsoastoavoidapplicationoftheprohibitionitselfwouldmakenosense. Itwouldhamstringacity’sright to investigatewrongdoing, including instances of religiousdiscrimination.26

TherecordbelowshowsthattheCity’srefusaltorenewCSS’s contractdidnot turnonCSS’s religiousaffiliation,butonitsviolationofanti‐discriminationlawsthatapplytobothreligious‐basedandsecularagencies.27Thatdoesnottriggerstrictscrutinyreview.

26NoristhereevidenceintherecordthatPhiladelphiaappliedits

lawinatargetedordiscriminatoryway.Theneutralapplicationofitsanti‐discriminationpolicyisdemonstratedbythefactsfoundbelow,including that it continues to (1) have a foster care contractualrelationshipwithanotheragency sharingPetitioners’opposition tosamesexmarriage,butwhichwaswillingtoagreenottodiscriminateinconsiderationofsamesexcouplesasfosterparents,Pet.App.103A;and(2)providemillionsofdollarsoftaxpayerfundstoPetitionerCSSfor childwelfare services distinct from foster care. Pet. App. 16a.,187a;JA208‐09,505.

27Petitionersarguethatthecity’sallowanceofcertainexemptions(...continued)

17

Petitioners also seek strict scrutiny review byrepeatedlycitingTrinityLutheranChurchv.Comer,137S.Ct. 2012 (2017), and arguing that the City is using its“contractingandfundingauthoritytoexcludeadisfavoredreligious actor.” Pet. Br. at 22. They are wrong. TrinityLutheran, likethemorerecentcase,Espinozav.MontanaDeptofRevenue,140S.Ct.2246,representalineofcaseseasily distinguishable from this case and Smith. Thosecases involve lawsthat“impose[d]specialdisabilitiesonthebasisofreligiousstatus,”TrinityLutheran,137S.Ct.at2015 (citation omitted), such as the denial of agovernmentbenefitotherwiseavailabletomembersofthepublic because of the recipient’s religious activities orbeliefs.

InTrinityLutheran,thestatebarredparochialschoolsfromreceivingpublicfundingavailabletootherschoolstopurchaserubberplaygroundsurfacessolelyonthebasisoftheparochial schools’ religious character. InEspinoza, astate policy prohibited students receiving statescholarshipfundsfromusingtheirscholarshiptoattendareligiously affiliated school without requiring anindividualizedassessmentofwhethersuchschoolswouldusethefundsforreligiousactivities.

In contrast, this case does not involve denial of agovernmentalbenefitotherwiseavailabletomembersofthe public. It involves a discretionary contract between

fromthecontractlanguagecompelsthatthecourtallowtheirrequesttoturnawaysamesexcouples.Thefactspresentedatthetrialonthemeritsdidnotshow that thecitygrantedexemptionsallowinganyagencyto“refuseitsservicestoallcomersincontraventionofanyfairpracticesprovisionsonany fosterservicescontract.”Fulton,320F.Supp.3dat689‐90.Instead,theseexamplesinvolvedconsiderationsrelevanttothebestinterestsofachildduringchildplacement,suchas expertise in addressingbehavioral issues, foster placements forpregnantyouth,andproximityconsiderations.Id.

18

Philadelphia and a private agency to render foster careservicestoallPhiladelphians.

Thebanondiscrimination reflected inPhiladelphia’sFairPracticesOrdinanceandincorporatedinitscontractsis neutral, generally applicable, and uses languagevirtually identical to statutes adopted throughout thecountry and implemented to address persistentdiscrimination against marginalized communities. Itapplieswhetherornotthediscriminationismotivatedbyreligious belief. The City investigated potentialdiscriminationinviolationofthestatute,asitwasentitledtodo.Asaresult,Philadelphia’sOrdinanceasappliedtoPetitionersisnotsubjecttostrictscrutiny.

IV.ANTI‐DISCRIMINATIONLAWSEMBODYA

PUBLICPOLICYOFTHEHIGHESTORDERANDTHE‘LESSRESTRICTIVEMEANS’ARGUMENT

ADVANCEDBYPETITIONERSWOULDCONDONEDISCRIMINATIONONTHEBASISOFRELIGION

ANDOTHERPROTECTEDCATEGORIES.

Theneutralandgenerallyapplicablenatureoftheanti‐discrimination lawat issue in thiscasedoesnotrequireapplication of a strict scrutiny standard of review.However,ifthisCourtweretodecideotherwise,thelawasappliedtoCSSwouldnonethelesssurvivesuchanalysis.

Even assuming that its adherence to the City’s anti‐discriminationrequirementsburdensitsreligiousbeliefsorpractices,CSSnonethelessconcedes that“restrictionson religious exercise [are] permitted only where thegovernment [is] advancing a particularly importantinterest.”Pet.Br.at46;seealsoid.at44(TheFreeExerciseClause canbe limitedwhere it conflictswith “especiallyimportantstateinterests.”).

19

Tosatisfystrictscrutiny,alawwhichburdensreligiouspractice must advance a public interest of the highestorderandmustbenarrowly tailored inpursuitof thoseinterests. Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 546. Philadelphia’sapplicationofitsnon‐discriminationlawtoprotectsamesex couples from being turned away by foster careagenciessatisfiesthosecriteria.

A. Combatting Discrimination Is A Public Interest of the Highest Order.

Discrimination, including religiously motivateddiscrimination,has longplaguedournation.Thehistorydescribed in Section I, supra, is just the backdrop ofdiscriminationthatcontinuesintothe21stCentury.

ItiswithinthememoryofmanylivingAmericanswhenovertdiscriminationlimitedaccessofracialandreligiousminorities tohousing,employment,goods,and services.Restaurantsandhotelsbrazenlydisplayed“WhitesOnly”or “No Jews”signs. Itwasnotso longago thatdeeds tosubdivisionsprohibitedsalestoBlackpeopleorJews,andrestaurantsandbarscouldfreelydenyentrancetowomen.

TheU.S.CommissiononCivilRights found that “Civilrights protections ensuring nondiscrimination in theConstitution, laws and policies, are of preeminentimportance inAmerican jurisprudence.”2016ReportofU.S.Comm’nonCivilRights,supra,at25.AsthecasescitedinSectionIdemonstrate,thisbehaviormaynolongerbepervasive but it certainly still persists. GrantingPetitioners’requestwouldconstituteastepbacktowardsovert, government‐sanctioned discrimination againstmembers of minority faiths and other marginalizedgroups.

Theparticularformofdiscriminationatissuehere–byfoster care agencies based on religious belief – iswell

20

documented in Philadelphia and across the country.Protectionagainstsuchdiscriminationisanecessarypartofprotectingtherightsanddignityofminorities.

In Philadelphia, Bethany Christian Services’ usedreligious criteria led it to turn away a same‐sex coupleseeking to become foster parents, but it has agreed tocomplywiththeCity’santi‐discriminationrequirements.28Asshownabove,however,fostercareoradoptionagenciesinSouthCarolina,Georgia,Nebraska,andTexasrefusetoworkwithsame‐sexcouplesasfosterparents.

It took years of demonstrations, protests, andlegislativecouragetoenactthekindsoflawsatissueherethat protect religious minorities and members ofmarginalizedcommunitiesfromdiscrimination.ItcannotreasonablybedisputedthatdiscriminationagainstsamesexcouplesispartofapervasiveproblemwhichtheCityofPhiladelphiahasacompellinginterestinaddressing.Itmeetsthefirsttestimposedby“strictscrutiny”review.

B. Condoning Discrimination Through An Exemption for Petitioners Is Not a Proper “Less Restrictive Means.”

PetitionersarguethatbyrefusingtocontractwithCSSunless it agrees to comply with its non‐discriminationpolicy, Philadelphia has not used the “least restrictivemeans”of furthering itspublicpolicygoalsand fails the“strict scrutiny” test. They argue that the fact that CSSadoptedapolicyofreferringsamesexcouplestooneoftheotheragenciesthatwillconsidersuchcouplesasfoster

28 Julia Teruso, City resumes foster‐care work with Bethany

Christian Services after it agrees to work with same‐sex couples,Philadelphia Inquirer (June 28, 2018), https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/foster‐care‐lgbt‐bethany‐christian‐services‐same‐sex‐philly‐lawsuit‐catholic‐social‐services‐20180628.html.

21

parents is sufficient to protect those parents fromdiscrimination.Pet.Br.at36.Theyarewrong.

Petitioners’ argument misconstrues the concept of“least restrictivemeans.”They concede,by citingHolt v.Hobbs,574U.S.352,365(2015),thataCourtaddressingthis question must determine whether the proposedmeansallowsthe“Governmenttoachieveitsgoals.”“Lessrestrictivemeans”havebeen foundwhere an exceptioncanbegrantedtoaccommodateaparty’sreligiousconductwithoutcausingharmtothirdparties.InBurwellv.HobbyLobbyStores, Inc.,573U.S.682,731‐32 (2014), theonlyalternativesconsideredbytheCourtinits“leastrestrictivemeans”analysiswasanexistingprogramthatwouldnotimpedeor imposeadditional costsonwomenaccessingcontraceptives.

AnanalogousquestiontothatraisedbyPetitioners iswhetheralandlordshouldbeabletodenyconsiderationofanunmarriedcoupleforhousingonreligiousgroundsbecause other landlords nearby do not engage in suchdiscrimination. In Smith v. Fair Employment & HousingCommission,12Cal.4th1143,1175(1996),theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthatalandlord’srefusaltorentunitstounmarriedcouplesonthebasisofherreligiousbeliefswasnotprotectedbyRFRAbecauseoftheharminflictedonprospectivetenants.

“Tosaythattheprospectivetenantsmayrentelsewhereis to deny them the full choice of available housingaccommodationsenjoyedbyothers . . . [and]deny themtherighttobetreatedequallybycommercialenterprises;this dignity interest is impaired by even one landlord’srefusal to rent,whether or not the prospective tenantseventuallyfindhousingelsewhere.”Id.;accordSwannerv.AnchorageEqualRightsComm’n,874P.2d274,283(Alaska1994)(findingthatlandlord’srefusaltorenttounmarried

22

couples on the basis of religious beliefs “degradesindividuals”and“affrontshumandignity”).

IftheCourtweretoacceptPetitioners’argument,thereis no limiting principle that would bar other forms ofreligious‐baseddiscrimination.WouldacateringcompanybeabletorefusetoofferitsservicestopeoplewhowearKippahsorheadscarvesbecauseofitsreligiousobjectionto Jews or Muslims simply by showing that there isanothervendoracrosstownwhowillservethosepeople?Conversely,wouldarestaurantownedbyJewsorMuslimsbepermitted torefuseserviceonreligiousgrounds toaCatholic,MormonorProtestant?

These circumstances present analogous facts as tothoseatissuehere,becausetheharmandviolationoftheanti‐discriminationlawoccursatthemomentofrefusaltoconsiderservingtheindividualsatissue.Adenialofgoodsorservicestoaprotectedgroupfollowedbyareferraltoanon‐discriminatingagencyorproviderdoesnotachievethe policy goal of protecting vulnerable citizens fromdiscrimination. It fails to avoid harm to the personsprotectedbytheanti‐discriminationlaws.Itisnota“lessrestrictivemeans.”

V.MANDATINGTHEEXEMPTIONSOUGHTBY

PETITIONERSWOULDVIOLATETHEESTABLISHMENTCLAUSE.

Freedomofreligionisashieldforfaith,notaswordtoharm thirdparties.TheFirstAmendmentshouldnotbeinterpretedasavehicletorequiregovernmentalentitiestoexemptreligious‐basedorganizationsfromcompliancewith laws applicable to all organizations providing thesame service or product to members of the public,

23

especiallywhere thoseservicesare fundedbyastateorcity.

There is no dispute that a governmentmay contractwith a religiously‐affiliated organization to provideservicestothepublicwithoutviolatingtheEstablishmentClause.However,when thegovernment thenallows thatagency toadminister itsservicesbyprovidingdisparatetreatmenttocertainclassesofindividualsonthebasisofreligiouscriteria,ithasgonetoofarandendorsedreligioninviolationoftheEstablishmentClause.29

“Theprinciplethatgovernmentmayaccommodatethefree exercise of religion does not supersede thefundamental limitations imposed by the EstablishmentClause.”Leev.Weisman,505U.S.577,587(1992).Justasthe neutrality principle at the heart of the FirstAmendment prohibits government from singling outreligion for disparate treatment, it also prohibits thegovernmentfrompreferringonereligionoveranotherorreligionovernon‐religion. See, e.g.Estate ofThornton v.Calder,472U.S.703,710 (1985) (EstablishmentClauseprohibits a law which “advances a particular religiouspractice”); Bd. of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village Sch. Dist. v.Grumet, 512U.S. 687, 704 (1994)(“civil powermust beexercised in a manner neutral to religion . . .”); Texas

29 Two recent cases illustrate the Establishment Clause issue

raisedbygovernmentpermittingreligiouslyaffiliatedforfostercareagenciestodiscriminateonthebasisofreligion.Dumontv.Lyon,341F.Supp.3d706(E.D.Mich.2018);Orderat31‐35,Maddonnav.U.S.Dep’tofHealthandHumanServs.,No.6:19cv03551(D.S.C.August10,2020), https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/2020‐08/U.S.%20District%20Court%2C%20S.C.%2C%20Opinion%20Maddonna%20v.%20HHS%208.10.20.pdf.Ineachcase,theDistrictCourtfound a properly pleadedEstablishment Clause claim arising fromactionsbystateandfederalexemptionsforreligious‐basedfostercareagenciesadministeringstateprograms.

24

Monthly,Inc.v.Bullock,489U.S.1,16‐17(1989)(strikingdownsalestaxexemptionforreligiouspublications.”)

In the case where a religious accommodation isconsidered, it “must be measured so that it does notoverride other significant interests,” Cutter v.Wilkinson,544 U.S. 709, 722 (2005), and must not “imposesubstantialburdensonnonbeneficiaries”TexasMonthly,489U.S.at18n.8.

The exemption demanded here fails on both counts.Requiring theexemption to theanti‐discrimination lawssoughtbyPetitionershastheeffectoffavoringareligiousbelieftothedetrimentoftheprotectionofthirdparties.Sucharulingwouldthreatenthefairandequaltreatmentnot only of same sex couples, but religious minoritiesseekingaccesstoawidearrayofservices,includingfoodbanks,homelessshelters,andhealthclinics.

Whenagovernmentchoosestoexemptanorganizationfrom a law of general application based on theorganization’s religious beliefs, then ithas gone too far.The exemption becomes an endorsement of religiousbeliefthatagovernmentmaynotdowithoutviolatingtheEstablishmentClause.

CONCLUSION

This country hasmade important and demonstrableprogressinensuringfairandequalaccesstoemployment,housing,publicaccommodationsandservicesbyreligious,ethnic, racial and otherminorities. That progress tookenormouscourage,sacrifice,anddecadestoachieve.

The anti‐discrimination laws enactedbyPhiladelphiaandmanyothercitiesandstatesweremilestones inthisfightagainstdiscriminationandintheadvocacyofjusticeandfairtreatmentforall.Theyprohibitdiscriminationbypersonsorentitiesofferingorproviding services to the

25

public,whethertheyarereligiously‐affiliatedornot.Theyprohibit discrimination whether the source of suchdiscriminationisreligionorotherwise.Theyprotectsamesexcouplesaswellasreligiousminoritiesandmembersofothermarginalizedcommunities.

ThisCourt isnow asked to exempt a religious‐basedorganization providing taxpayer‐funded services to thepublicfromananti‐discriminationlawbecauseofagoodfaith religious belief. Requiring such an exception forPetitionersinthiscasewouldcauseafloodofdemandsforsimilar exemptions, undermining the efficacy of thoselaws in safeguarding vulnerable members of thepopulation,includingreligiousminoritiesandmembersofothermarginalizedcommunities

26

For the reasons set forth herein, the Free ExerciseClause does not compel such an exception, and theEstablishmentClauseprotectsagainstit.ThejudgmentoftheThirdCircuitshouldbeaffirmed.

Respectfullysubmitted,

ARNOLD&PORTERKAYESCHOLERLLPGILBERTR.SEROTACOUNSELOFRECORDBENJAMINT.HALBIGThreeEmbarcaderoCenter10thFloorSanFrancisco,CA94111Telephone:[email protected]@arnoldporter.comADL(ANTI‐DEFAMATIONLEAGUE)STEVENM.FREEMANDAVIDBARKEYAMYFEINMANKARENLEVIT605ThirdAvenueNewYork,NY10158

AttorneysForAmiciCuriaeADL(Anti‐DefamationLeague)andothers.

August20,2020.

APPENDIX

1a

APPENDIX

AMICICURIAESTATEMENTSOFINTEREST

Amicus curiae ADL (theAnti‐DefamationLeague)wasfoundedin1913inresponsetoanescalatingclimateofantisemitismandbigotry,andtodayremainsaleadinganti‐hateorganizationwiththetimelessmissiontoprotecttheJewishpeopleandtosecurejusticeandfairtreatmentforall. Tothisend,ADL isasteadfastsupporterofanti‐discrimination laws, as well as the religious libertiesguaranteedbyboththeEstablishmentandFreeExerciseClauses. ADL staunchly believes that the Free ExerciseClause isa criticalmeans toprotect individual religiousexercise, but it must not be used as a vehicle todiscriminate by enabling some people to impose theirreligiousbeliefsonothers.

AmicuscuriaeBend theArc:A JewishPartnershipfor Justice isanationalorganization inspiredby Jewishvalues and the steadfast belief that Jewish Americans,regardless of religious or institutional affiliations, arecompelled to create justice and opportunities forAmericans.

Amicus curiae Interfaith Alliance Foundation is anational non‐profit organization committed tochampioning true religious freedom and strengtheningthe separation between religion and government.Withmembers from over 75 faith traditions and of no faith,InterfaithAlliancepromotespoliciesthatprotectpersonalbelief,combatextremism,andensure thatallAmericansaretreatedequallyunderlaw.

Amicus curiae the Japanese American CitizensLeague("JACL")isanationalorganizationwhoseongoingmission is to secure and maintain the civil rights ofJapaneseAmericansandallotherswhoarevictimizedby

2a

injusticeandbigotry.Awareofourresponsibilitiesastheoldest and largest Asian Pacific American civil rightsorganization,JACLstrivestopromoteaworldthathonorsdiversity by respecting values of fairness, equality andsocialjustice.

AmicuscuriaeJewishWomenInternational(“JWI”)is a leading Jewish organization working to empowerwomenandgirlsbyensuringandprotectingtheirphysicalsafetyandeconomicsecurity,promotingintergenerationalleadership, and inspiring community engagement. As afaith‐basedorganization, JWI recognizes the importanceof protecting religious liberty, and believes that theconstitutionalprinciple of the separation of church andstate created by theEstablishment Clause and the FreeExerciseClause, iscritical toprotecting the fundamentalrightsofall.

Amicus curiaeKeshetworks for the full equality ofLGBTQJewsinJewishlife.WeturnvaluesattheheartofJudaism—equality, inclusion, and human dignity—intoactioninJewishcommunitiesbecausewhenwestandbyandallowLGBTQJewstobeexcluded,weholdallofJewishlifebackfromreachingitsfullpotential.WeequipJewishorganizations with the tools to build LGBTQ‐affirmingcommunities,createspacesforqueerJewishteenstofeelvalued as queer and Jewish, and mobilize the Jewishcommunity to fight for LGBTQ justice nationwide.Consistent with our mission and our commitment toreligiouslibertyandnondiscrimination,Keshetjoinsthisbrief.

Amicus Curiae the National Council of JewishWomen (“NCJW”) is a grassroots organization of over90,000advocateswhoturnprogressiveidealsintoaction.InspiredbyJewishvalues,NCJWstrivesforsocial justicebyimprovingthequalityoflifeforwomen,children,andfamilies and by safeguarding individual rights and

3a

freedoms.NCJW'sResolutionsstatethatNCJWresolvestoworkfor“Lawsandpoliciesthatprovideequalrightsforall regardless of race, gender, national origin, ethnicity,religion,age,disability,maritalstatus,sexualorientation,gender identity and expression, economic status,immigration status, parenthood status, or medicalcondition” and for "Laws, policies, and programs thatprotect every person’s right to make decisions aboutwhethertohaveornothavechildrenandtobirth,adopt,and/ or parent with dignity."Consistent with ourPrinciplesandResolutions,NCJWjoinsthisbrief.

Amicus curiae OCA ‐ Asian Pacific AmericanAdvocates (“OCA”) is a national Asian American andPacific Islander (“AAPI”) civil rights organization withchapters across the country, including in the greaterPhiladelphiaarea.OCAadvocatesforpoliciesthatenhancethesocial,economic,andpoliticalwell‐beingoftheAAPIcommunity, some of whom identify as lesbian, gay,bisexual,transgender,orqueer.Assuch,casesthatimpacttheabilityofAAPILGBTQcommunitiestofullyengageinAmerican society are of extreme concern to theorganization.

Amicus curiae People For the American WayFoundation (“PFAWF”) is a nonpartisan civicorganizationestablishedtopromoteandprotectcivilandconstitutionalrights, includingreligious liberty.Foundedin 1981 by a group of civic, educational, and religiousleaders, PFAWF now has hundreds of thousands ofmembers nationwide. PFAWF strongly supports theprinciple of the Free Exercise Clause of the FirstAmendmentasa shield for the freeexerciseof religion,protecting individualsofall faiths.PFAWF is concerned,however,aboutefforts,suchas inthiscase,totransformthisimportantshieldintoaswordtoundulyharmothers,which also violates the Establishment Clause. This is

4a

particularly problematic when the effort is to excuseviolations of anti‐discrimination legislation, which isimportanttoprotectreligiousandotherminorities.

Amicus curiae the Sikh Coalition is the largestcommunity‐based Sikh civil rights organization in theUnitedStates.SinceitsinceptiononSeptember11,2001,theSikhCoalitionhasworked todefendcivil rightsandliberties for all people, empower the Sikh community,createanenvironmentwhereSikhscanleadadignifiedlifeunhindered by bias or discrimination, and educate thebroader communityofSikhism.TheSikhCoalition joinsthis brief out of the belief that anti‐discriminationsafeguards are essential for religious, ethnic, and otherminoritycommunities.

AmicuscuriaeT’ruah:TheRabbinicCallforHumanRights (“T’ruah”) brings together rabbis and cantorsfromallstreamsofJudaismwithallmembersoftheJewishcommunitytoactontheJewishimperativetorespectandadvancethehumanrightsofallpeople.T’ruahtrainsandmobilizesanetworkof1,800rabbisandcantorsandtheircommunities to bring Jewish values to life throughstrategicandmeaningfulaction.Asmembersofareligiousminority, T’ruah supports this brief because it believesPetitioners’ position, rather than protecting religiousfreedom,willonlyservetorestrictit.

Amici curiae Texas Impact, a 501(c)(4) nonprofitcorporation,andtheTexasInterfaithCenterforPublicPolicy, a501(c)(3)nonprofit corporation, function as astate council of Christian, Jewish, andMuslim religiousorganizations in Texas that promote public policyconsistent with the national positions of our memberdenominations. Our member denominations haveministries that partner with state government. TexasImpactand theTexas InterfaithCenter forPublicPolicybelieve that religious freedom in state services is best

5a

protectedwhenthegovernmentdoesnotallowproviderstoimposereligiousbeliefonbeneficiaries.

in the supreme court of the united states...no. 19‐123 in the supreme court of the united states...

Documents