Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 105.0

6 

FULTON v. PHILADELPHIA 

GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

Meanwhile, our case has nothing to do with the referral— 
or  placement—stage  of  the  foster  process.  This  case  con-
cerns the recruitment and certification stages—where fos-
ter agencies like CSS screen and enroll adults who wish to 
serve  as  foster  parents.  And  in  those  stages  of  the  foster
process, §15.1 seems to prohibit discrimination absolutely.

That  difficulty  leads  the  majority  to  its  second  step.  It 
asks us to ignore §3.21’s title and its limited application to 
the  referral  stage.  See  ante,  at  9.  Instead,  the  majority
suggests, we should reconceive §3.21 as authorizing excep-
tions to the City’s nondiscrimination rule at every stage of
the foster process.  Once we do that, the majority stresses, 
§3.21’s  reservation  of  discretion  is  irreconcilable  with 
§15.1’s  blanket  prohibition  against  discrimination.  See 
ante, at 9. 

This  sets  up  the  majority’s  final  move—where  the  real
magic happens.  Having conjured a conflict within the con-
tract,  the  majority  devises  its  own  solution.    It  points  to
some state court decisions that, it says, set forth the “rule”
that Pennsylvania courts shouldn’t interpret one provision 
in a contract “to annul” another part.  Ibid.  To avoid nulli-
fying §3.21’s reservation of discretion, the majority insists,
it has no choice but to rewrite §15.1.  All so that—voila— 
§15.1  now  contains  its  own  parallel  reservation  of  discre-
tion.  See ante, at 9.  As rewritten, the contract contains no 
generally applicable rule against discrimination anywhere
in the foster process.  

From start to finish, it is a dizzying series of maneuvers.
The  majority  changes  the  terms  of  the  parties’  contract,
adopting an uncharitably broad reading (really revision) of 
§3.21.  It asks us to ignore the usual rule that a more spe-
cific  contractual  provision  can  comfortably  coexist  with  a 
more  general  one.    And  it  proceeds  to  resolve  a  conflict  it
created by rewriting §15.1.  Once more, too, no party, ami-
cus, or lower court argued for any of this.