Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 18

14 

FULTON v. PHILADELPHIA 

Opinion of the Court 

generality, but the First Amendment demands a more pre-
cise analysis.  See Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente 
União do Vegetal, 546 U. S. 418, 430–432 (2006) (discussing 
the compelling interest test applied in Sherbert and Wiscon-
sin  v.  Yoder,  406  U. S.  205  (1972)).    Rather  than  rely  on
“broadly  formulated  interests,”  courts  must  “scrutinize[ ] 
the asserted harm of granting specific exemptions to partic-
ular religious claimants.”  O Centro, 546 U. S., at 431.  The 
question, then, is not whether the City has a compelling in-
terest in enforcing its non-discrimination policies generally, 
but whether it has such an interest in denying an exception
to CSS. 

Once properly narrowed, the City’s asserted interests are
insufficient.  Maximizing the number of foster families and 
minimizing liability are important goals, but the City fails
to show that granting CSS an exception will put those goals
at risk.  If anything, including CSS in the program seems 
likely to increase, not reduce, the number of available foster 
parents.  As  for  liability,  the  City  offers  only  speculation 
that  it  might  be  sued  over  CSS’s  certification  practices.
Such speculation is insufficient to satisfy strict scrutiny, see 
Brown  v.  Entertainment  Merchants  Assn.,  564  U. S.  786, 
799–800 (2011), particularly because the authority to cer-
tify foster families is delegated to agencies by the State, not 
the City, see 55 Pa. Code §3700.61. 

That leaves the interest of the City in the equal treatment 
of prospective foster parents and foster children.  We do not 
doubt that this interest is a weighty one, for “[o]ur society
has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay cou-
ples  cannot  be  treated  as  social  outcasts  or  as  inferior  in 
dignity and worth.”  Masterpiece Cakeshop, 584 U. S., at ___ 
(slip op., at 9).  On the facts of this case, however, this in-
terest cannot justify denying CSS an exception for its reli-
gious exercise.  The creation of a system of exceptions under
the contract undermines the City’s contention that its non-
discrimination  policies  can  brook  no  departures.  See