St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy
No. 25-581 · October Term 2026 · First Amendment · argument November 3, 2026
Expected vote 6–3 for St. Mary Catholic Parish. Chance of a unanimous ruling 46%.
Before oral argument the model knows only the case's structure: the issue area, which way the lower court ruled, and each justice's record on both. That is not enough to separate cases, so every unargued case carries the petitioner's base rate. The transcript features arrive within days of argument and the number becomes a call.
The case
St. Mary Catholic Parish is suing Lisa Roy, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, over Colorado's universal preschool program, which excludes Catholic preschools that admit families based on their support for Catholic beliefs. The Tenth Circuit upheld Colorado's decision, finding that the state's secular exemptions did not undermine general applicability and that the exclusion was not explicitly based on religion. The Supreme Court must now decide how to interpret the "general applicability" requirement for laws that burden religious exercise and the scope of the precedent set in Carson v. Makin.
- Does proving a lack of general applicability under Employment Division v. Smith require showing unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct, or is a broader interpretation warranted?
- Does Carson v. Makin, which prohibits discrimination based on religious status, apply only when the government explicitly excludes religious people and institutions, or does it have a wider reach?
- Should the precedent of Employment Division v. Smith, which established a lower standard for laws burdening religious exercise if they are neutral and generally applicable, be overruled?
- The Court will need to clarify the interplay between the Free Exercise Clause and government programs that offer secular exemptions while denying religious ones.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
Colorado's so-called universal preschool program pays for families to send their children to the preschool of their choice, public or private. To participate, preschools must ensure all families have an "equal opportunity" to enroll regardless of, inter alia , race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, income level, or disability. Colorado nonetheless permits numerous exemptions from this requirement, both categorical and discretionary, allowing preschools to admit only "children of color," "gender-nonconforming children," "the LGBTQ community," low-income families, and children with disabilities. But Colorado excludes Catholic preschools because they admit only families who support Catholic beliefs, including on sex and gender. The Tenth Circuit upheld Colorado's decision to exclude Catholic preschools. Applying Employment Division v. Smith , it held that Colorado's secular exemptions and discretion did not undermine general applicability. In so doing, the court sided with the minority position in an entrenched and acknowledged 7 -4 split over what kinds of exemptions and discretion undermine general applicability. The court also eschewed Carson v. Makin , concluding that its rule was inapplicable because Colorado's exclusion was not "on the explicit basis" of religion. The questions presented are: 1. Whether proving a lack of general applicability under Employment Division v. Smith requires showing unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct. 2. Whether Carson v. Makin displaces the rule of Employment Division v. Smith only when the government explicitly excludes religious people and institutions. 3. Whether Employment Division v. Smith should be overruled
Facts of the case (Oyez)
Colorado voters established the Universal Preschool Program (UPK) to provide free preschool services through a “mixed delivery system” of public and private providers. To receive state funds, providers must sign a nondiscrimination agreement that requires them to enroll students regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Two Catholic parishes and the Archdiocese of Denver sought to participate in the program but refused to sign the agreement. They argued that their religious tenets require them to consider the sexual orientation and gender identity of families during admissions to maintain their religious environment. The schools specifically challenged the program’s “preference system,” which uses an algorithm to match families with schools based on categories like sibling enrollment or congregation membership. They also highlighted a “temporary waiver” provision that allows the state to grant providers extra time to meet certain quality standards. The schools argued that these features create a system of “individualized exemptions” where the state exercises discretion to favor secular interests. Because the state allows these secular preferences while denying a religious exemption to the nondiscrimination rule, the schools contended the program unconstitutionally penalizes them for their religious character. The district court denied the schools’ request for a permanent injunction, ruling that the nondiscrimination requirement is a neutral and generally applicable law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed that decision, holding that the state’s program does not grant the type of unfettered discretion that would trigger strict scrutiny.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in First Amendment cases, and when the lower court ruled conservative; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court conservative | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often seeks to avoid broad constitutional pronouncements, and his vote in Carson v. Makin suggests a concern for religious institutions being excluded from public benefits programs. He may focus on whether Colorado's program truly offers individualized exemptions that should extend to religious providers. | 68% St. Mary Catholic Parish | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 75% First Amendment · 83 votes | 61% lower court conservative · 734 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas is a strong proponent of robust religious liberty protections and has often expressed skepticism about the Smith standard. He is likely to favor a reading that finds a lack of general applicability when secular exemptions are present and may be open to reconsidering Smith. | 63% St. Mary Catholic Parish | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 69% First Amendment · 163 votes | 43% lower court conservative · 1,365 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito consistently advocates for expansive religious freedom and has been a vocal critic of the Smith standard. He is likely to scrutinize Colorado's program for any disparate treatment of religious institutions and may support overturning Smith. | 66% St. Mary Catholic Parish | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 77% First Amendment · 79 votes | 48% lower court conservative · 722 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor generally emphasizes the importance of the Establishment Clause and often defers to government regulations, but she joined the majority in Carson v. Makin, indicating a willingness to protect religious institutions from certain forms of discrimination in public programs. Her focus may be on whether the program's exclusions are truly neutral. | 68% St. Mary Catholic Parish | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 48% First Amendment · 69 votes | 76% lower court conservative · 594 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often emphasizes judicial restraint and the importance of precedent, but she also joined the majority in Carson v. Makin. She will likely examine whether Colorado's program truly creates a system of individualized exemptions that should trigger strict scrutiny under Smith. | 68% St. Mary Catholic Parish | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 63% First Amendment · 62 votes | 75% lower court conservative · 543 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch is a strong advocate for religious liberty and has consistently sought to expand protections for religious exercise, often criticizing the Smith standard. He is likely to find that Colorado's exemptions undermine the general applicability of the program and may support overturning Smith. | 66% St. Mary Catholic Parish | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 78% First Amendment · 37 votes | 59% lower court conservative · 286 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh has generally sided with religious liberty claims and joined the majority in Carson v. Makin. He will likely be attentive to whether the state's program is genuinely neutral or if it unfairly targets religious institutions. | 66% St. Mary Catholic Parish | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 79% First Amendment · 34 votes | 62% lower court conservative · 244 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett is a proponent of religious freedom and has expressed views that align with a more robust interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause. She is likely to scrutinize the nature of Colorado's exemptions and whether they create an impermissible burden on religious exercise. | 68% St. Mary Catholic Parish | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 75% First Amendment · 24 votes | 60% lower court conservative · 178 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson has a limited record on Free Exercise cases, but her jurisprudence generally emphasizes equality and non-discrimination. She will likely consider whether the state's program is truly neutral and generally applicable, or if it unfairly discriminates against religious providers. | 68% St. Mary Catholic Parish | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 67% First Amendment · 15 votes | 80% lower court conservative · 127 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.