Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Challengers’ Argument In Fulton Could “Require Governments To Allow All Manner Of Discrimination”

WASHINGTON – Following oral argument this morning in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Ashwin Phatak had the following reaction:

The First Amendment does not prevent a city government from prohibiting discrimination against same-sex couples in its foster-placement program. Indeed, the Court’s precedents make clear that the government has substantial leeway to run its own foster-placement program as it sees fit, and that is especially so to achieve an important governmental interest like prohibiting discrimination. Moreover, as a number of questions in today’s argument revealed, the consequences of holding otherwise would be profound and potentially require governments to allow all manner of discrimination—on bases as varied as race, sex, or religion—by government contractors. Neither the Constitution nor the Court’s precedents provide any support for going down that road.

#

Resources:

CAC’S case page in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, including our brief on behalf of First Amendment scholars: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/fulton-v-city-of-philadelphia/

“The Fate of Anti-Discrimination Laws Lies With the Supreme Court,” CAC Blog, Becca Damante, August 21, 2020: https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/the-fate-of-anti-discrimination-laws-lies-with-the-supreme-court/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
May 24, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.