The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether publicly funded preschool providers can refuse to enrol children of LGBTQ+ parents.
The case, St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. Roy, centres on Colorado’s universal preschool programme, which requires participating providers — including religious schools — to follow nondiscrimination rules covering sexual orientation and gender identity. The justices granted review on Monday, 20 April, and will hear the case in their next term, which begins in October. A decision is expected by June 2027.
The Catholic challengers, including the Archdiocese of Denver and affiliated preschools, argue that the policy forces faith-based schools to choose between public funding and their religious beliefs about marriage, family and gender. Colorado, by contrast, says the programme is open to religious providers so long as they comply with the same neutral rules that apply to everyone else.
Lower courts have so far sided with Colorado. The 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the state’s position, and Colorado’s opposition brief to the Supreme Court argued that the law requires all eligible children to have an equal opportunity to enrol regardless of characteristics, including sexual orientation or gender identity, as those characteristics apply to the child or the child’s family.
That detail is central to the case. According to Colorado’s filing, the schools involved objected to enrolling children of same-sex or gender-diverse parents, and in some cases also indicated they would not enrol a gender-diverse child. The state argues that allowing an exemption would mean taxpayer-funded providers could turn away preschoolers because of who their parents are.
LGBTQ+ advocates say the stakes are enormous, particularly because the case involves public money. In comments reported by The Advocate, Rocky Mountain Equality chief executive Mardi Moore said Colorado’s preschool system was built on the promise that public funding would serve all children, not finance exclusion.
The case is also significant because it may push the justices to revisit or further narrow the long-standing 1990 precedent in Employment Division v. Smith, which generally allows neutral laws of general application to apply to religious objectors. The Catholic preschools, backed by Becket, are explicitly asking the court to reconsider that framework.
So while the case is formally about preschool funding, it could have much wider consequences. The court’s eventual ruling may shape whether religious providers participating in public programmes can claim a constitutional right to reject children based on their parents’ sexual orientation or gender identity. That final point is an inference drawn from the legal questions presented and the arguments described in current reporting and filings.
