St. Vincent Catholic Charities v. Ingham County Board of Commissioners

On December 13, 2019, Becket Law filed a suit against the Ingham County Board of Commissioners on behalf of St. Vincent Catholic Charities. 

St. Vincent runs a program that helps refugees relocate, find medical care, and acquire jobs. They are the only refugee resettlement site in Lansing Michigan and are federally recognized for being a priority resettlement site for LGBTQ refugees. These are individuals fleeing their country after being persecuted for their gender and sexual identities. The lawsuit was initially filed when St. Vincent was excluded from the Community Agency Grant which is described on the county website as “financial support to various non-profit community organizations that provide a broad range of services for the purpose of advancing the County's adopted long-range objectives." St. Vincent was denied this grant on account of its stance on LGBTQ marriage. Like many Catholic organizations, they do not approve of same-sex marriage. This is relevant to this case because earlier in 2019 the ACLU took St. Vincents to court over their denial to provide their adoption services to a same-sex couple in
the case Buck v. Gordon. The ACLU believed that they should not receive state funding while they discriminated against the LGBTQ community. St. Vincenent's won the case and continued to receive government aid for their adoption services. Becket Law's position is that the county is essentially holding a grudge against St. Vincents for Buck v. Gordon and that it is unreasonable to deny them this grant because of that. 

The constitutional question at play here is, can the Ingham County Board of Commissioners deny St. Vincent Catholic Charities a grant to conduct refugee relocation services on account of their religiously held beliefs regarding same-sex marriage and their practice of that belief through the denial of adoption services to same-sex couples. 

The County Board of Commissioners felt that the idea of offering St. Vincents the Community Agency Grant meant they had to decide "between offering refugee services and treatment of the LGBT community." This isn't actually fair to say, however, on account of St. Vincent providing refugee services to LGBTQ Individuals. According to the case summary St. Vincent's has “welcomed twenty-four LGBTQ refugees from seven countries” over the years. The Board of Commissioners' response to St. Vincent reminds me of Bob Jones University v. United States, They believe that the state's interest in not funding organizations that discriminate against minority groups outweighs their right to free exercise. While there is a compelling state interest in not funding discrimination of any kind I think this case is more nuanced.  

The key thing to understand in this case is the precedent for St. Vincent's discriminatory policy. not only did they win Buck v. Gordan and continue to receive state funding but if we look to Fulton v. Philadelphia we find that the supreme court found it unconstitutional to deny a religious organization state funding for charitable work on account of their religiously-based discrimination. Additionally, we need to look at the grant in regards to the work St. Vincent is doing. The grant is offered to non-profit organizations that promote the goals of the county. They are the only refugee resettlement organization in the area, and most importantly, they don't discriminate against the LGBTQ community in their refugee services. St. Vincent only objects to same-sex marriage, not the life or safety of people who engage in it. To deny them this grant and limit their ability to reach and aid refugees could actually harm LGBTQ individuals who seek asylum through St. Vincents. If the county still takes issue with St. Vincent's adoption policies they should address those directly and not try and limit the organization as a whole. 

It seems to me that the County Board of Commissioners wanted to deny them this grant on principle more than anything else and the people that it will hurt the most are those in need of refugee services. I don't believe the county to have a very strong case here, between the precedent for St. Vincent's discrimination via the free exercise clause, and the important service that they provide they should be allowed this grant.