Loading...
Loading...
Click here if you don’t see subscription options
FILE - In this Nov. 10, 2020, file photo the sun rises behind the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the city of Philadelphia violated the Constitution by limiting its relationship with a Catholic foster care agency over the group's refusal to certify same-sex couples as foster parents.

The justices came down unanimously against Philadelphia and for Catholic Social Services.

“The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

Catholic Social Services is affiliated with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. The agency has said that its Catholic beliefs prevent it from certifying same-sex couples as foster parents.

Philadelphia learned in 2018 from a newspaper reporter that the agency would not work with same-sex couples. The city has said it requires that the two dozen-plus foster care agencies it works with not to discriminate as part of their contracts. The city asked the Catholic agency to change its policy, but the group declined. As a result, Philadelphia stopped referring additional children to the agency.

Catholic Social Services sued, but lower courts sided with Philadelphia.

[Why do Catholics make up a majority of the Supreme Court?]

The latest from america

In 2015, Pope Francis had changed the ceremony, inviting new archbishops to concelebrate Mass with him and be present for the blessing of the palliums as a way of underlining their bond of unity and communion with him.
In my work as both a catechist and mental health professional, I have seen the impact of spiritual abuse firsthand.
Paul FaheyJune 11, 2025
A Homily for the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity, by Father Terrance Klein
Terrance KleinJune 11, 2025
Who are we as a country if we are unable to recognize the same aspirations demonstrated by today’s immigrants that once defined the immigrants of generations gone by?