Litigation
Cal. Litig. 2020, Volume 33, Number 2
Content
- A Long and Winding Road to Undo Bad Supreme Court Law
- Affirmative Action Quandaries the Affirmative Action Puzzle: a Living History from Reconstruction to Today (Pantheon:322 Pages) By Melvin I. Urofsky
- Editor's Foreword Sweet Successes — On or About 31 Flavors
- From Cla's Ceo a Personal Plea for Addressing the Root Causes of Racism
- From the Section Chair News for a New World
- Insurance Coverage Analysis Avoids Malpractice Landmines
- Intellectual Property Litigation and Other Updates in the Video Game Industry as of April 2020
- Masthead
- MCLE Article Threats, Extortion and Legitimate Advocacy
- Navigating the New Settled Statement Procedures
- Nuts and Bolts of Videoconference Dispute Resolution in the Time of Covid-19
- Recent Legislative Changes Affect Long-Standing Pre-Trial Discovery Practice
- Showing Lack of Probable Cause: Plaintiff's Burden of Proof in Opposing an Anti-Slapp Motion Attacking a Malicious Prosecution Claim
- Stringfellow Acid Pits: the Toxic and Legal Legacy By Brian Craig
- Table of Contents
- The Puzzle of Precedent in the California Court of Appeal
- That Family Is Wrong for You: Religious Objections Before the Supreme Court
That Family Is Wrong for You: Religious Objections Before the Supreme Court
By Peter Renn
Peter Renn is Counsel in the Los Angeles office of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. prenn@lambdalegal.org
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a taxpayer-funded foster care provider’s religious objection to protections against sexual orientation discrimination in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2019) 922 F.3d 140. The decision could have significant implications for the ability of government to enforce nondiscrimination requirements. If decided broadly, Fulton also has the potential to reshape much of law as we know it, ushering a new era of expanded litigation over religious objections to virtually any legal obligation.
Fulton asks whether it is constitutionally permissible for the City of Philadelphia to require that its foster care providers, who are contracted to provide government services, comply with the City’s nondiscrimination policy. The provider at issue, Catholic Social Services (CSS), refuses to work with married same-sex couples seeking to serve as foster parents because of its religious belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. That refusal violates the City’s nondiscrimination protections, which bar discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, and other characteristics. After learning of that refusal policy, the City did not renew its contract with CSS. CSS seeks an injunction to force the City to renew its contract — while also permitting CSS to engage in otherwise prohibited discriminatory conduct.