Supreme Court to hear school discrimination, immigrant labor in November

Audio By Carbonatix

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in cases over universal preschool discrimination, temporary immigrant workers and oil pipelines during the November argument session.

Justices on the high court plan to hear cases over a range of issues during the November sitting. Legal analysts weighed in on the most high profile cases during the month’s session and how justices will debate them.

Universal Preschool Discrimination

On Nov. 3, the high court will hear arguments in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a case challenging nondiscrimination agreements for preschools that receive public funds in Colorado.

Since 2022, Colorado’s universal preschool program has allowed students in select schools 15 hours per week of free education in the year before kindergarten. Schools are required to sign agreements to prevent from enrolling or denying families on the basis of sexual orientation, religious affiliation, income, race, disability or gender.

However, this agreement conflicted with Catholic teaching on same-sex marriage and two schools sued after they were not approved for an exception to the agreement.

Lawyers for the schools argued the state previously made exceptions to the nondiscrimination agreement based on secular reasons and discriminated on the basis of religion by denying Catholics the opportunity to oppose same-sex families from enrolling.

"Colorado doesn’t disagree it is interfering with the religious exercise of parents and schools," lawyers for the parishes wrote. "Instead, it says it is perfectly fine to exclude Catholic preschools while letting in preschools preferring those with disabilities, limited income, or LGBTQ identity."

Thomas Berry, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, said the divide between treatment in the case is a central issue in a webinar previewing the case.

“If some schools are allowed to be pro-LGBT family, it’s religious discrimination to say a Catholic school can’t be anti,” Berry said. “This religious school is asking to be able to discriminate because the anti-discrimination on the basis of orientation rule runs up against their religious beliefs.”

However, lawyers for Colorado argued the exceptions for schools that cater toward students with disabilities cannot be compared to what the Catholic schools request.

"Preschools that prioritize children with disabilities and children from low-income families do not deny equal opportunity based on disability or income level in violation of UPK's statutory equal-opportunity requirements," lawyers for the state wrote.

Immigrant Farm Labor

On Nov. 10, justices on the high court plan to also weigh in on whether the executive branch can administer fines to a company that does not comply with immigrant labor standards.

Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards focuses on a $500,000 fine levied by the government against a farm that employed immigrants on H-2A visas.

The government issued the fine after an investigation and hearing through the Department of Labor.

The government argued Sun Valley Orchards did not comply with necessary standards to continue using the temporary labor program. However, lawyers for the New Jersey farm argued that the case should be heard through a court in the judicial system, not within a presidential administration.

Berry said the farms argued the case boiled down to a contract dispute, which Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires judiciary courts to handle, unlike how the case was handled by a judge through the Department of Labor.

“If you participate in a discretionary privilege program, you also do not get an article 3 court right,” Berry said.

Lawyers for the Department of Labor said employers that use the H-2A program to hire workers must comply with federal guidelines to ensure American citizens are not disadvantaged by the program.

“Administrative adjudications provide an efficient mechanism for ensuring that employers who participate in that vast program comply with those terms and conditions,” the lawyers wrote in a brief to the high court.

Berry said the case could have greater ramifications on how deportation cases are adjudicated and predicted the justices will rule in favor of the Trump administration’s authority.

Oil Pipeline

On Nov. 9, the high court plans to weigh in on federal land seizures regarding oil pipeline development. The justices will hear Hoffman v. WBI Energy Transmission, a case challenging the purchase of land in North Dakota to develop an oil pipeline.

Len Hoffman, alongside other ranch owners, said WBI Energy Transmission offered too low of a rate to buy part of their land for an oil pipeline. Hoffman challenged the offer under North Dakota law, which requires attorneys fees to be included in a compensation agreement with eminent domain involved.

“This is actually disadvantageous to people that own land or property that's condemned because they're not really going to get full indemnification or full compensation after they have to pay the attorney's fee,” said Thomas Merrill, a law professor at Columbia University.

Merrill expressed concern over the high court’s ability to establish legal precedent in a case where public and private property rights are at issue. He said the court is not prepared to develop a legal theory around eminent domain. 

“The U.S. Supreme Court does not have the institutional capacity to develop an entire jurisprudence of eminent domain for everybody in the country under the umbrella of the takings clause,” Merrill said.

A decision in each of these cases is expected by June 2027.