When Colorado promised free preschool to every four year old in the state, it used the word “universal.” Two Catholic parishes near Denver say that promise came with an asterisk: join the program, but be ready to set aside Catholic teaching on marriage and gender at the classroom door. On November 3, the Supreme Court will hear St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a case that could reshape one of the most contested doctrines in American religious liberty law, and one that dozens of outside groups, from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to the ACLU, have weighed in on.

In 2020, Colorado voters approved a new funding source for a statewide preschool program. In 2022, the state built out the Colorado Universal Preschool Program (often called UPK), which gives eligible four year olds free hours of preschool at public or private providers, including religious ones. To take the money, though, a school has to agree to an “equal opportunity” rule: it cannot turn away eligible families based on things like race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, income, or disability.

St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton, another Colorado parish, their preschools, the Archdiocese of Denver, and two parents sued. They argue that following Catholic teaching on marriage and gender, including how bathrooms and pronouns are handled, would put them in conflict with the state’s rule, and that being forced to choose between their faith and public funding violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.

The case moved fairly fast through the lower courts. A federal district court held a three day trial and ruled for Colorado, finding the nondiscrimination requirement neutral and generally applicable, and therefore constitutional; it dismissed the Archdiocese from the case for lack of standing. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in September 2025, finding no evidence Colorado was targeting religion and rejecting the parishes’ argument that the state was interfering with their right to associate around shared beliefs. The parishes asked the Supreme Court to step in, and in April 2026 the Court agreed, limiting review to two specific questions.

Those questions sound technical, but they matter a lot. First: to prove a government rule isn’t really “generally applicable,” does a challenger have to prove that the government has too much discretion to grant exceptions, or that it allows similar secular conduct while restricting religious conduct? Second: does a 2022 precedent called Carson v. Makin only block government from excluding religious schools when it does so explicitly and by name, or does it reach further?

To understand why those questions are the whole ballgame, you need three cases. In 1990’s Employment Division v. Smith, the Court ruled that a neutral law applying to everyone, even one that happens to burden someone’s religious practice, doesn’t need to survive tough scrutiny, it just needs a reasonable basis. That case involved a state denying unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using peyote in a religious ceremony, but its rule has governed religious liberty cases ever since. In 2021’s Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the Court refined that rule: if a government builds in a system of individualized exemptions, meaning it can grant case by case exceptions to some but not others, the law stops being “generally applicable” and must survive strict scrutiny instead, the toughest test in constitutional law. And in Carson v. Makin, decided the same year, the Court held that once a state chooses to fund private education, it cannot exclude schools just because they are religious.

The parishes argue Colorado’s program isn’t as neutral as it looks. Their brief points to features of UPK that exempt some providers from parts of the equal opportunity rule, including schools that serve only children with disabilities, only low income families, or exclusively LGBTQ identified children, plus a discretionary process for other accommodation requests. Under Fulton, they say, that kind of built in flexibility means the state cannot then refuse the same flexibility to Catholic schools without a very strong justification, one Colorado can’t meet. They also lean on the Carson line of cases, arguing that once Colorado invites private schools into a public benefit program, it cannot condition participation on schools abandoning their religious character, even indirectly.

Colorado and its allies, including the ACLU of Colorado, see it differently. They argue the equal opportunity requirement applies the same way to every preschool, secular or religious, and doesn’t ask any provider about its beliefs; it only asks providers not to turn away children because of who they or their parents are. In their view, the exemptions the parishes point to are built into the program’s eligibility rules for everyone alike, not one off discretionary favors, so Fulton doesn’t apply. They also argue Carson is about excluding schools because they’re religious, and Colorado isn’t doing that: religious schools are welcome in UPK, as long as they follow the same enrollment rules as everyone else.

The Trump administration’s Justice Department filed briefs supporting the parishes at both the certiorari and merits stages, while dozens of religious organizations, school choice groups, and 43 members of Congress backed them as amici. On the other side, briefs came in from the National Women’s Law Center, child care advocacy groups, and a coalition of Catholic theologians and LGBTQ Catholic organizations supporting Colorado’s position. It’s also worth knowing that Colorado has lost a string of recent religious liberty cases at the Supreme Court, including Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative, which is part of why this case is drawing so much attention.

Listen for a few things when the arguments happen. First, watch how far the justices are willing to stretch Fulton’s definition of “individualized exemptions.” If a blanket exemption for disability providers counts the same as a case-by-case waiver, that could affect a wide range of licensing and benefits programs, not just preschool funding. That helps explain why local government groups have raised concerns about what the decision could mean for zoning and permitting rules.

Second, watch how the Court treats Carson. Does its protection for religious schools apply only when the government excludes a school because it is religious, or does it also protect religious conduct? Colorado argues that it is not excluding Catholic schools because they are Catholic. Instead, the state says, the issue is how those schools would treat certain families.

Third, pay attention to whether the parishes are effectively asking the Court to reconsider Employment Division v. Smith, as the petitioners have urged. The justices could take on that broader question, or they could decide the case on narrower grounds without reopening Smith.

The case may be about four-year-olds, but the legal question reaches much further. How much can a state require of a public or private school once that school receives government funding? The answer could affect school-choice and voucher programs, nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ students, and the ability of religious schools to set their own admissions policies while receiving public money. Those same questions come up in debates over K-12 education and, in some cases, college financial aid.

A ruling is not expected anytime soon. The Court generally decides cases it hears during a term before that term ends, so a decision would likely come in spring or summer 2027.