Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

sought certification from CSS.  If one did, CSS would direct 
the couple to one of the more than 20 other agencies in the
City,  all  of which  currently  certify  same-sex  couples.    For 
over 50 years, CSS successfully contracted with the City to
provide foster care services while holding to these beliefs.

But things changed in 2018.  After receiving a complaint 
about a different agency, a newspaper ran a story in which 
a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia stated that 
CSS  would  not  be  able  to  consider  prospective  foster  par-
ents in same-sex marriages.  The City Council called for an 
investigation, saying that the City had “laws in place to pro-
tect  its  people  from  discrimination  that  occurs  under  the 
guise of religious freedom.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 147a.  The 
Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations launched an
inquiry.  And the Commissioner of the Department of Hu-
man  Services  held  a  meeting  with  the  leadership  of  CSS.
She  remarked  that  “things  have  changed  since  100  years
ago,” and “it would be great if we followed the teachings of 
Pope Francis, the voice of the Catholic Church.”  App. 366.
Immediately  after  the  meeting,  the  Department  informed
CSS  that  it  would  no  longer  refer  children  to  the  agency. 
The City later explained that the refusal of CSS to certify
same-sex couples violated a non-discrimination provision in
its contract with the City as well as the non-discrimination 
requirements of the citywide Fair Practices Ordinance.  The 
City stated that it would not enter a full foster care contract
with CSS in the future unless the agency agreed to certify
same-sex couples.

CSS and three foster parents affiliated with the agency 
filed suit against the City, the Department, and the Com-
mission.  The Support Center for Child Advocates and Phil-
adelphia Family Pride intervened as defendants.  As rele-
vant here, CSS alleged that the referral freeze violated the
Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amend-
ment.  CSS sought a temporary restraining order and pre-
liminary  injunction  directing  the  Department  to  continue