宗教权利与LGBTQ权利的交集再次登上联邦最高法院的审理日程。周二，大法官们将裁决科罗拉多州能否要求接受公共资金的幼儿园招收同性伴侣的子女。
The intersection of religious and LGBTQ rights lands — again — on the Supreme Court’s docket Tuesday. The justices are set to decide whether Colorado can require preschools that receive public dollars to admit the children of same-sex couples.
“在科罗拉多州，宗教自由似乎受到了轻视，”贝克特宗教自由基金会（Becket Fund for Religious Liberty）法律团队成员乔·戴维斯（Joe Davis）表示。在一系列重大胜利后，该组织再次来到由保守派占多数的法院。去年，大法官们同意马里兰州某县的家长可让子女退出使用含LGBTQ主题书籍的教学。
“It seems like there's short shrift being given to religious liberty in the state of Colorado,” said Joe Davis, part of the legal team fighting the state at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The group is back before the conservative-majority court after a series of major victories, including last year when the justices agreed parents in a Maryland county could opt out their children from instruction that uses books with LGBTQ themes.
这一轮，戴维斯及其同事代表丹佛总教区、两个堂区及家长，依据《第一修正案》挑战科罗拉多州针对接受州资助幼儿园的反歧视强制规定。科罗拉多州的全民学前教育计划为每个儿童提供每周15小时的学前教育资助，但学校必须同意，无论种族、收入水平、残疾等各种条件，以及性取向和性别认同，都要给予家庭“平等机会”入学。
This round, Davis and his colleagues represent the Archdiocese of Denver, two parishes and parents who challenge Colorado’s antidiscrimination mandate for preschools that receive state funds under the First Amendment. Colorado’s universal preschool program funds 15 hours of weekly preschool for a child, but the school must agree to provide families an “equal opportunity” to enroll regardless of various conditions. Sexual orientation and gender identity are among the list, which also spans things like race, income level and disability.
这是围绕科罗拉多州推行LGBTQ保护措施的最新一场最高法院之争。上一届会期，大法官们以8比1裁定，该州的“转化疗法”禁令侵犯了咨询师的言论自由权。2023年，法院裁定这个蓝州不能强制一位福音派基督教网页设计师制作同性婚礼网站。在此之前，法院基于狭窄理由，支持了一名提出类似挑战的蛋糕烘焙师。
It’s the latest Supreme Court battle over Colorado's efforts to enact LGBTQ protections. Last term, the justices ruled 8-1 that the state’s “conversion therapy” ban impinged on a counselor’s free speech rights. In 2023, the court ruled the blue state couldn’t require an evangelical Christian web designer to provide same-sex wedding websites. And before that, the court on narrow grounds sided with a cake baker who launched a similar challenge to Colorado’s law.
“我不认为科罗拉多州这次会比上一次——或过去几次——运气更好，”戴维斯说。
“I don't think there's going to be that Colorado is going to have better luck than last time — or the last several times,” Davis said.
最新案件是对1990年最高法院先例的关键考验，该先例由已故保守派偶像大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚（Antonin Scalia）撰写。
The newest case is a key test of a 1990 Supreme Court precedent authored by the late conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia.
该判决认为，中立且普遍适用的法律推定为合宪，即使这些法律给宗教权利带来了负担。该判决受到当今部分保守派大法官的批评，他们认为这威胁宗教自由。三位大法官——克拉伦斯·托马斯、塞缪尔·阿利托和来自科罗拉多州的尼尔·戈萨奇——已明确呼吁推翻该判决。科罗拉多州称其学前教育强制令符合1990年判决。该州和LGBTQ权益团体抱有希望，认为最高法院将同意这一观点，尽管目前法院6比3的保守派多数中存在怀疑态度。
It held that neutral and generally applicable laws are presumptively constitutional, even ones that burden religious rights. It has come under criticism by some of today’s conservative justices, who say it threatens religious liberty. Three — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and native Coloradan Neil Gorsuch — have explicitly called for the decision to be overturned. Colorado says its preschool mandate aligns with the 1990 decision. The state and LGBTQ advocacy groups are holding out hope that the Supreme Court will agree, even with that skepticism within the court’s current 6-3 conservative majority.
“如果法院尊重先例，这本应如此，那么有一个非常明确的学说，”人权运动组织政策与诉讼高级副总裁莎伦·麦高恩表示。最高法院已拒绝在科罗拉多州案件中考虑彻底推翻1990年先例。但天主教教区希望大法官们利用此案对先例的适用范围作狭义解释。他们称，该先例根本不应适用于公共福利项目。这一论点获得了特朗普政府的支持，后者称斯卡利亚1990年关注的是刑法，而非类似科罗拉多州学前教育强制令之类的事项。
“If the court honors precedent, which it should, there is a very clear doctrine,” said Sharon McGowan, senior vice president of policy and litigation at the Human Rights Campaign. The Supreme Court has declined to consider outright overturning the 1990 precedent in the Colorado battle. But the Catholic parishes hope the justices will use the case to take a narrow view of the precedent’s scope. They say it shouldn’t reach public benefit programs at all. It’s an argument that has garnered support from the Trump administration, which says Scalia in 1990 was focused on criminal laws and not something like Colorado’s preschool mandate.
政府将在周二的辩论中与天主教教区的律师一同出庭陈述观点。“法律对宗教学校从事核心宗教活动能力造成的实质性负担显而易见，”司法部长D·约翰·绍尔在致法院的文书中写道。“法律的诸多例外情况与任何要求统一、公平录取标准的迫切州利益相悖，”他补充道。
The administration will appear at Tuesday’s arguments to make the case alongside a lawyer for the Catholic parishes. “The substantial burden on religious schools’ ability to engage in core religious exercise is patent,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote to the court. “The law’s myriad exceptions belie any compelling state interest in uniform, even-handed admissions criteria,” he added.
“科罗拉多州未能为宗教学前教育机构提供便利，这损害了而非促进了其声称的‘平等获取’利益。”科罗拉多州称这偏离了重点，并将造成一项“全面的新规则”。“本法院无需也不应重新设计信仰自由原则来裁决此案，本案涉及的是对公共资助服务提供者施加的公正且统一的条件，”该州在其书面辩护状中写道。该州辩称，其强制规定并非旨在给宗教学校增加负担，而是确保没有家庭被剥夺公共福利。
“And Colorado’s failure to accommodate religious preschools undermines, not promotes, its stated interest in ‘equal access.’”Colorado says that misses the point and would create a “sweeping new rule.”“This Court need not, and should not, redesign Free Exercise doctrine to decide this case, which involves impartial and uniform conditions on providers of publicly funded services,” the state wrote in its written brief. It argues its mandate is not aimed at burdening religious schools and instead ensures that no family is deprived of a public benefit.
“每个人都在参与并向那个基金投入资金，对吧？”麦戈文说。“同性恋者、异性恋者——每个人都在向那个资金池投入资金，因此我认为该州理应希望确保，当它从那个公共资金池中提取资金时，能够惠及所有人。”
“Everyone is participating and putting money into that coffer, right?”McGowan said. “Gay people, straight people — everyone is putting into that money pot, and so the state, I think, appropriately, wants to make sure that when it is drawing money from that communal pot, it is able to benefit all of the people.”