{
  "id": 18034333,
  "title": "Here’s what the Supreme Court said during oral arguments in Colorado’s Catholic preschool case",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/11/03/heres-what-the-supreme-court-said-during-oral-arguments-in-colorados",
  "topic": "science",
  "section": "Science",
  "published": "2026-11-03T22:57:38.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Chalkbeat",
    "slug": "chalkbeat",
    "url": "https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2026/11/03/st-mary-catholic-parish-v-roy-supreme-court-oral-arguments/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments in a Colorado case regarding religious schools receiving public funds. The case, St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, involves two Catholic preschools that objected to Colorado's nondiscrimination rules. The preschools sought to join a state-funded preschool program but refused to comply with the rules protecting individuals based on sexual orientation and gender identity. They argued that admitting LGBTQ students or students from LGBTQ families would conflict with Catholic teachings. However, the state denied their request for an exemption.\n\nConservative justices questioned why the issue had reached the high court when a satisfactory solution was apparently available. They suggested Colorado could have found a compromise allowing Catholic preschools to participate in the program while still providing ample choices for LGBTQ families. They questioned if the state's interest was in providing equal opportunity or merely some opportunity.\n\nOther conservative justices raised hypothetical scenarios to illustrate how non-discrimination rules could potentially infringe upon religious beliefs. They mentioned hypothetical cases such as banning head coverings or imposing unconsciousness requirements on slaughterhouses, both of which would affect religious practices.\n\nLiberal justices challenged the Catholic preschools' legal arguments. They questioned whether the schools would unilaterally reject children based solely on their parents' sexual orientation. Nick Reaves, representing the Catholic preschools, stated that if it was the preschool's \"sincere religious exercise,\" then it would be permitted. He also argued that states could circumvent rulings that treat religious schools differently by not explicitly targeting religion.\n\nJustice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether religious schools could refuse admission to children from other protected classes if the court allows them to exclude children based on LGBTQ status. She posed a hypothetical scenario of a religious entity refusing to enroll students based on race or ethnicity. Attorney Sarah Harris, representing the preschools, argued that such an argument would likely fail in court due to the government's compelling interest in preventing racial discrimination.",
  "summary": "Did you know search engines like Google are changing the way you see news? Keep Chalkbeat’s valuable education coverage at the top of your feeds by clicking here and checking the box next to our name. The U.S. Supreme Court heard two hours of arguments Tuesday in a Colorado case that could have nationwide implications for the conditions states can place on religious schools that receive public…",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}