Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 88

66 

FULTON v. PHILADELPHIA 

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

an excuse for bigotry—went too far.  Id., at ___–___ (slip op., 
at 12–14).  But what about the comments of Philadelphia 
officials in this case?  The city council labeled CSS’s policy 
“discrimination  that  occurs  under  the  guise  of  religious
freedom.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 147a.  The mayor had said
that the Archbishop’s actions were not “Christian,” and he
once called on the Pope “to kick some ass here.”  Id., at 173a, 
177a–178a.  In  addition,  the  commissioner  of  the  Depart-
ment of Human Services (DHS), who serves at the mayor’s 
pleasure,79 disparaged CSS’s policy as out of date and out of 
touch with Pope Francis’s teachings.80 

The Third Circuit found this evidence insufficient.  Alt-
hough  the  mayor  conferred  with  the  DHS  commissioner
both  before  and  after  her  meeting  with  CSS  representa-
tives, the mayor’s remarks were disregarded because there 
was no evidence “that he played a direct role, or even a sig-
nificant role, in the process.”  922 F. 3d, at 157 (emphasis 
added).  The city council’s suggestion that CSS’s religious
liberty claim was a “guise” for discrimination was found to
“fal[l]  into  [a]  grey  zone,”  and  the  commissioner’s  debate 
with a CSS representative about up-to-date Catholic teach-
ing, which “some might think . . . improper” “if taken out of 
context”  was  “best  viewed  as  an  effort  to  reach  common 

—————— 

79 App.  367–369  (Commissioner  Figueora  testifying  that  she  was  ap-
pointed by the mayor, reports ultimately to him, and considers herself 
part of his administration); Phila. Home Rule Charter, Art. IX, ch. 2, §9–
200 (Removal of Appointive Officers). 

80 App.  182,  365–366.    Apart  from  the  statements  made  by  City  offi-
cials, other evidence suggested that the City was targeting CSS.  For in-
stance, the City changed its justification for the closure of intake to CSS 
numerous times.  Brief for Petitioners 12–15 (describing six different jus-
tifications).  And although the City’s stated harm was that CSS’s process 
for certifying new families was discriminatory, it responded by prohibit-
ing  placement  with  all  CSS  families,  including  those  already  certified. 
The City’s response therefore appears to “proscribe more religious con-
duct than is necessary to achieve [its] stated ends.”  Lukumi, 508 U. S., 
at 538.