Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

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

9 

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

the lower courts, bound by Smith, will reject that argument;
and CSS will file a new petition in this Court challenging 
Smith.  What is the point of going around in this circle?

Not  only  is  the  Court’s  decision  unlikely  to  resolve  the
present dispute, it provides no guidance regarding similar
controversies  in  other  jurisdictions.    From  2006  to  2011, 
Catholic  Charities  in  Boston,  San  Francisco,  Washington, 
D. C., and Illinois ceased providing adoption or foster care
services  after  the  city  or  state  government  insisted  that 
they  serve  same-sex  couples.    Although  the  precise  legal 
grounds for these actions are not always clear, it appears 
that they were based on laws or regulations generally pro-
hibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.22 
And  some  jurisdictions  have  adopted  anti-discrimination 
rules that expressly target adoption services.23  Today’s de-

—————— 

22 See 102 Code Mass. Regs. 1.03(1) (1997) (prohibiting discrimination 
on  the  basis  of  sexual  orientation  as  a  condition  of  receiving  the  state
license  required  to  provide  adoption  services);  San  Francisco  Admin. 
Code §12B.1(a) (2021) (requiring that all contracts with the city include 
a provision “obligating the contractor not to discriminate on the basis of ” 
sexual orientation and noting that the code section was last amended in 
2000); D. C. Code §§ 2–1401.02(24), 2–1402.31 (2008) (prohibiting, on the 
basis of sexual orientation, the direct or indirect denial of “the full and 
equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,
and accommodations of any place of public accommodations,” defined to 
include “establishments dealing with goods or services of any kind”); Ill.
Comp.  Stat.,  ch.  775,  §§5/1–103(O–1),  (Q),  5/5–101(A),  5/5–102  (2011)
(prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in a “place 
of public accommodation,” defined by a list of non-exclusive examples). 
23 See, e.g., Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Ann. §16013(a) (West 2018) (declar-
ing that “all persons engaged in providing care and services to foster chil-
dren, including . . . foster parents [and] adoptive parents . . . shall have 
fair  and  equal  access  to  all  available  programs,  services,  benefits,  and 
licensing processes, and shall not be subjected to discrimination . . . on 
the basis of . . . sexual orientation”); D. C. Munic. Regs., tit. 29, §6003.1(d)
(2018) (providing that foster parents are “[t]o not be subject to discrimi-