Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 98.0

76 

FULTON v. PHILADELPHIA 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

is simply asserting the right to control its own internal op-
erations, and they analogize CSS to either a City employee 
or a contractor hired to perform an exclusively governmen-
tal function. 

This  argument  mischaracterizes  the  relationship  be-
tween CSS and the City.  The members of CSS’s staff are 
not City employees; the power asserted by the City goes far
beyond a refusal to enter into a contract; and the function 
that CSS and other private foster care agencies have been 
performing for decades has not historically been an exclu-
sively  governmental  function.  See,  e.g.,  Leshko  v.  Servis, 
423 F. 3d 337, 343–344 (CA3 2005) (“No aspect of providing 
care  to  foster  children  in  Pennsylvania  has  ever  been  the 
exclusive province of the government”); Rayburn v. Hogue, 
241 F. 3d 1341, 1347 (CA11 2001) (acknowledging that fos-
ter care is not traditionally an exclusive state prerogative); 
Milburn v. Anne Arundel Cty. Dept. of Social Servs., 871 F. 
2d 474, 479 (CA4 1989) (same); Malachowski v. Keene, 787 
F. 2d 704, 711 (CA1 1986) (same); see also Ismail v. County 
of Orange, 693 Fed. Appx. 507, 512 (CA9 2017) (concluding 
that foster parents were not state actors).  On the contrary, 
States and cities were latecomers to this field, and even to-
day, they typically leave most of the work to private agen-
cies. 

The power that the City asserts is essentially the power
to deny CSS a license to continue to perform work that it 
has carried out for decades and that religious groups have
performed  since  time  immemorial.    Therefore,  the  cases 
that  provide  the  basis  for  the  City’s  argument—such  as 
Garcetti  v.  Ceballos,  547  U. S.  410  (2006),  and  Board  of 
Comm’rs,  Wabounsee  Cty.  v.  Umbehr,  518  U. S.  668 
(1996)—are  far  afield.    A  government  cannot  “reduce  a
group’s  First  Amendment  rights  by  simply  imposing  a  li-
censing  requirement.”  National  Institute  of  Family  and 
Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., 
at 14).