Colorado Case in Which Religious Schools Attempt to Weaponize Disability Rights to Support LGBTQIA+ Discrimination Heads to Supreme Court, Friend of the Court Brief Filed
Colorado Case in Which Religious Schools Attempt to Weaponize Disability Rights to Support LGBTQIA+ Discrimination Heads to Supreme Court, Friend of the Court Brief Filed.
August 25, 2026
WASHINGTON, DC – Yesterday, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) and 12 other amici, [1] represented by Colorado-based civil rights firms Fox & Robertson and Grata Law and Policy, filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy. [2]
In 2022, Colorado established a universal preschool (UPK) system. Participation is open to public and private, secular and religious schools; schools that opt in must agree not to discriminate against families who wish to enroll based on race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and other protected characteristics. [3]
The Colorado UPK system includes an Individualized Education Program (IEP) preference to ensure that its student/school matching algorithm results in disabled students receiving required services. An IEP is the hallmark special education plan required under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Since its inception, the IDEA has required that students with disabilities must be granted modifications to policies and practices because of systemic disadvantages in education – and Congress and the courts have recognized that children with disabilities suffer segregation, neglect, and discrimination without legal protections.
In 2023, several Colorado religious schools filed suit against the state, claiming that the schools’ religious beliefs prohibit them from enrolling LGBTQIA+ children (or children with LGBTQIA+ parents) and thus from complying with the UPK system’s nondiscrimination requirement. The schools justified their discrimination by arguing that the IEP preference amounts to discrimination against children without disabilities since it prioritizes disabled students.
DREDF’s amicus brief explains why the schools’ argument misconstrues the substance and history of disability rights and special education law and addresses ways IEPs have made it possible for disabled students to have equal educational opportunities. For example, when a child who is blind needs assigned readings in digital formats or in Braille, this would be secured through an IEP. By providing the disabled child with the tools they need to do assigned work, the school is not discriminating against children without disabilities who can read printed books. Stripped of its rhetoric, the religious schools’ argument is that accommodations for disabled people discriminate against nondisabled people. This position has long been rejected by Congress and the courts; indeed, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals characterized this argument as absurd or, to quote the opinion, “farcical.” [4]
“They’re flipping disability rights on its head. If their argument succeeds, any form of special education could be declared discrimination against children without disabilities. Such a result would harm millions of disabled children, putting their education and their future at risk,” said Peter Talkington, a DREDF attorney.
The amicus brief also reviews the history and purpose of the IDEA, the duty schools have to accommodate students with disabilities, and the real-world implications of the IEP preference in Colorado’s universal preschool program.
In addition to its fundamental misunderstanding of disability rights law, the schools’ argument is a cynical attempt to pit the disability community against the LGBTQIA+ community, a position Amici emphatically reject. “Amici disability rights organizations stand in solidarity with our LGBTQIA+ siblings to ensure all children have the opportunity to access Colorado’s universal preschool program,” said Fox & Robertson partner Amy Robertson.
“This case is not just about allyship—it poses an existential threat to antidiscrimination laws everywhere. In search of a religious license to discriminate against LGBTQIA+ families, St. Mary Catholic Parish seeks to erode hard-fought protections for disabled students as well,” said Matthew Simonsen of Grata Law and Policy LLC.
The religious schools lost at the District Court and Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court agreed to hear their case. Oral argument has been scheduled for November 3, 2026, and a final decision will be issued by next summer.
###
https://dredf.org/smcp-v-roy-amicus-press-release-2026/
Media Contact Tina Pinedo Communications & Operations Director Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (510) 225-7726 media@dredf.org
About Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) is a national civil rights law and policy center directed by people with disabilities and parents of children with disabilities. Our mission is to advance the civil and human rights of people with disabilities through legal advocacy, training, education, and public policy and legislative development. We work with the core principles of equality of opportunity, disability accommodation, accessibility, and inclusion. dredf.org
About Fox & Robertson Fox & Robertson is a Denver-based law firm with a practice focused on using the tools of the legal system to create a more accessible world. foxrob.com
About Grata Law and Policy Grata Law and Policy is a Boulder, Colorado litigation boutique dedicated to building a more just society. The firm handles First Amendment and civil rights cases, appeals, and other civil litigation matters. gratalegal.com
[1] AdvocacyDenver; the Arc of the United States; the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the Autistic Women and Nonbinary Network; the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition; the Colorado Disability Bar Association; CommunicationFIRST; the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; Deaf Equality; Disability Justice (formerly Disability Law Colorado); Disability Law United; and the National Association of the Deaf.
[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-581.html
[3] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 26.5-4-205(2)(b).
[4] St. Mary Cath. Par. in Littleton v. Roy, 154 F.4th 752, 772 (10th Cir. 2025).
Download a PDF of this release here: 2026.08.25 Press Release SMCP v. Roy - Brief of DREDF et al. - Access Pass.pdf