{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://katherineclark.house.gov/2026/08/24/advocate-179-lawmakers-tell-scotus-not-to-let-taxpayer-money-accepting-religious-preschools-reject-lgbtq-families/", "Advocate: 179 lawmakers tell SCOTUS not to let taxpayer money-accepting religious preschools reject LGBTQ+ families", "2026-08-24", "2026", "2026-08", "Democrat", "House", "MA", "Katherine M. Clark", "C001101", "katherineclark.house.gov", "clark", "https://katherineclark.house.gov/newsroom/", "scraper", "The Congressional Equality Caucus said Monday that 179 members of Congress, including 13 senators, had signed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve Colorado\u2019s power to prevent publicly funded preschools from denying admission to children because they or their parents are LGBTQ+.\n\nThe brief in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy is led by U.S. Rep. Mark Takano of California, the caucus chair, with Democratic Sens. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Jeff Merkley of Oregon. Its signers include Reps. Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, Pete Aguilar, Nancy Pelosi, and every Equality Caucus co-chair.\n\n\u201cIn 2020, Coloradans voted to ensure every child in the state would be able to benefit from a publicly-funded universal pre-school program, but the schools in this case want to take these funds and turn away LGBTQ+ kids and kids of LGBTQ+ parents\u2014despite the program\u2019s nondiscrimination policy. This is wrong,\u201d Takano said in a statement. \u201cPublic dollars are for the good of the public, and this publicly funded program\u2019s nondiscrimination policy reflects that.\u201d\n\nHow the preschool case reached the Supreme Court\n\nColorado voters approved a funding source for universal preschool in 2020. The current program offers all 4-year-olds up to 15 hours of free preschool weekly in the year before kindergarten through public, private, and faith-based providers. Participating schools must provide equal enrollment opportunities regardless of characteristics including sexual orientation and gender identity.\n\nTwo Catholic parishes sued alongside the Archdiocese of Denver and parents Daniel and Lisa Sheley. The schools say Catholic teaching requires them to consider the sexual orientation and gender identity of children and parents during admissions. They do not categorically exclude children with same-sex parents, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found, although Wellspring Catholic Academy previously denied admission to a fifth-grade applicant with same-sex parents.\n\nThe Advocate reported when the case went to trial in 2024 that the parishes argued the rule could prevent them from prioritizing Catholic families and require them to admit transgender children and children with same-sex parents. Colorado maintained that Catholic preschools are treated like other providers.\n\nThe schools also argue that Colorado\u2019s matching preferences and temporary waivers for some quality standards favor secular interests while denying religious accommodations. The 10th Circuit held that neither created a comparable exception from the nondiscrimination rule. After a three-day trial, the district court denied the schools an exemption from the sexual orientation and gender identity provisions. A unanimous 10th Circuit panel affirmed that ruling.\n\nLGBTQ+ families tell the court what exclusion means\n\nCOLAGE, Family Equality, and Rocky Mountain Equality submitted a separate brief Monday describing the consequences for children with LGBTQ+ parents. The organizations argue that LGBTQ+ families may value religious education for faith formation, community, and tradition even when a school does not fully accept them.\n\nMore than 40 faith-based providers, including six Catholic Charities preschools within the Denver Archdiocese, participated in the program\u2019s first year. The organizations argue Colorado does not regulate religious instruction. Schools may teach their faith but may not reject an eligible child because of the child\u2019s family while receiving public money, they say.\n\n\u201cSt. Mary wants public money to turn a four-year-old away based on who their parents are. I know what that message does to a child,\u201d Joseph Wright, an adult child of a lesbian mother, said.\n\nThe brief describes families losing access to nearby preschools and scrambling to arrange transportation or leave work. It argues that an alternative school does not erase the harm of government-funded exclusion.\n\nWhat the justices will decide\n\nThe Supreme Court will hear arguments November 3 on two questions. The first concerns Employment Division v. Smith, the 1990 ruling allowing neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religion. The justices will consider what government discretion or secular exceptions trigger strict scrutiny.\n\nThe second concerns Carson v. Makin, the 2022 decision prohibiting Maine from excluding religious schools from a tuition program. The question is whether that rule covers only explicit religious exclusions or also neutral conditions a religious institution says it cannot follow. The justices declined the schools\u2019 request to consider overturning Smith entirely.\n\nCongress divides over public money and discrimination\n\n\u201cIf you want to get taxpayer dollars to educate our kids, you cannot discriminate against them or their parents for who they are or who they love,\u201d Baldwin said.\n\n\u201cDiscrimination against preschoolers and parents who are part of the LGBTQ+ community has no place in America,\u201d Merkley said.\n\nThe congressional brief responds to a filing from 43 Republican lawmakers led by Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma and Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan. They argue Colorado is excluding the schools because of their beliefs. The Trump administration has also sided with the Catholic schools.\n\n\u201cTo let certain schools accept public funding while excluding students solely because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, or those of their parents, contradicts the very purpose of nondiscrimination laws,\u201d said Sharon McGowan, senior vice president of policy and litigation at the Human Rights Campaign.\n\nA decision is likely by June 2027.\n\n\u2014", 1, "2026-08-26T05:33:32Z", "2026-08-26T05:34:56Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://katherineclark.house.gov/2026/08/24/advocate-179-lawmakers-tell-scotus-not-to-let-taxpayer-money-accepting-religious-preschools-reject-lgbtq-families/"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.9720609523355961, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}