Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2020 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

FULTON ET AL. v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 
PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

No. 19–123.  Argued November 4, 2020—Decided June 17, 2021 

Philadelphia’s foster care system relies on cooperation between the City
and private foster care agencies.  The City enters standard annual con-
tracts with the agencies to place children with foster families.  One of 
the responsibilities of the agencies is certifying prospective foster fam-
ilies under state statutory criteria.  Petitioner Catholic Social Services 
has contracted with the City to provide foster care services for over 50 
years, continuing the centuries-old mission of the Catholic Church to 
serve  Philadelphia’s  needy  children.    CSS  holds  the  religious  belief
that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman.  Because 
CSS believes that certification of prospective foster families is an en-
dorsement  of  their  relationships,  it  will  not  certify  unmarried  cou-
ples—regardless of their sexual orientation—or same-sex married cou-
ples.  But  other  private  foster  agencies  in  Philadelphia  will  certify 
same-sex  couples,  and  no  same-sex  couple  has  sought  certification 
from CSS.  Against this backdrop, a 2018 newspaper story recounted 
the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s position that CSS could not consider 
prospective foster parents in same-sex marriages.  Calls for investiga-
tion  followed,  and  the  City  ultimately  informed  CSS  that  unless  it
agreed to certify same-sex couples the City would no longer refer chil-
dren  to  the  agency  or  enter  a  full  foster  care  contract  with  it  in  the 
future.  The City explained that the refusal of CSS to certify same-sex
married  couples  violated  both  a  non-discrimination  provision  in  the 
agency’s contract with the City as well as the non-discrimination re-
quirements of the citywide Fair Practices Ordinance.

CSS and three affiliated foster parents filed suit seeking to enjoin 
the City’s referral freeze on the grounds that the City’s actions violated
the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment.