Sign up for our daily briefing
Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Denver news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver
Des Moines news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines
Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities
Tampa Bay news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay
Charlotte news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte
Photo: Daniel Slim/AFP via Getty Images
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a high-profile case that could reshape the bounds of First Amendment protections for religion.
Why it matters: The direct question in this case is whether Philadelphia had the right to cancel a contract with an adoption agency that refused to place foster children with same-sex couples. It also poses bigger questions that could lead the court to overturn a key precedent and carve out new protections for religious organizations.
Details: The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, but that doesn't allow one to invoke religious beliefs to "ignore generally applicable laws," the Supreme Court said in a 1990 decision.
- In this case, Philadelphia says its refusal to work with organizations that discriminate against same-sex couples is a "generally applicable" law — it applies to everyone, no matter their religion, and so there does not need to be a religious exemption.
- The adoption agency, backed by conservative legal advocates, says the city's policy is not neutral, but rather is a specific intrusion on Christian organizations' ability to abide by their religious beliefs.
What to watch: The Supreme Court will not only decide who's right in this specific dispute, but has also asked whether it should "revisit" the underlying 1990 precedent.
- Under Chief Justice John Roberts, people who come to the court claiming a violation of their free-exercise rights usually win.
The bottom line: The Roberts court's record, plus the fact that it's inviting a challenge to its own precedents, indicates that it's open to a more expansive view of religious freedom — which could ultimately weaken a host of other nondiscrimination policies well beyond Philadelphia's.