St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy will be the fourth case about Colorado antidiscrimination laws to wind up at the Supreme Court in 10 years. AP Photo/J. Scott ApplewhiteThe U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term on Oct. 5, 2026. One of the cases that the justices have agreed to hear is a First Amendment religious liberty case, St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy.The case arose because Colorado’s new Universal Preschool Program only provides funding to preschools that agree to abide by a nondiscrimination policy. That policy forbids, among other things, denying admission because of a student’s or parent’s sexual orientation or gender identity.Two Catholic parishes in the Archdiocese of Denver – St. Mary in Littleton and St. Bernadette in Lakewood – challenged that requirement and sued. They, along with Catholic parents who joined the lawsuit, argue that the nondiscrimination policy violated their First Amendment right to freely practice their religion.As a constitutional law scholar with a forthcoming book about legal cases that pit First Amendment rights against LGBTQ rights, I consider St. Mary v. Roy to be significant for multiple reasons.This case brings together major themes from recent Supreme Court cases about religion’s role in public life, especially in education. All these cases deal with the First Amendment, which protects both freedom of speech and freedom of religion, along with several other rights.But St. Mary is also significant for another, perhaps more surprising reason: It is yet another case from Colorado. Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has considered less than a dozen cases that address, even tangentially, how to balance free speech or religious freedom with protections for the LGBTQ community. Yet Colorado has been the source of five of these cases over a 30-year period. Equal protectionOne of the earliest Supreme Court decisions recognizing constitutional protection for queer people was Romer v. Evans, a 1996 case from Colorado.In the 1970s through the early 1990s, Colorado was a red-leaning state with several blue urban areas, like Aspen, Boulder and Denver. Many of these blue cities had passed local ordinances against discrimination based on sexual orientation in areas like housing and employment.In the early 1990s, conservative groups sought to nullify such ordinances – including Focus on the Family, which had recently relocated its headquarters to Colorado Springs. This coalition aimed to amend the state constitution to forbid any government entity from adopting or enforcing laws that prohibited discrimination against gay, lesbian or bisexual people. In 1992, a statewide ballot initiative to approve such an amendment passed with a roughly 53% majority.Several gay Coloradans and progressive municipalities, including Aspen, Boulder and Denver, sued. They argued that the new Colorado amendment violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause, which requires that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”Colorado defended the constitutionality of its new amendment by arguing that the goal was to show “respect for other citizens’ freedom of association” – a right often defended on First Amendment grounds – especially for those “who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality.”The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which sided with the gay plaintiffs and their allies in a 6-3 decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy concluded that “the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects”: gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. He concluded that the law lacked “a rational relationship to legitimate state interests” and thus was unconstitutional.Romer v. Evans became the first U.S. Supreme Court decision to recognize equal protection rights for queer people.Role reversalIn the 30 years since, there has been a stark role reversal. Colorado has become an increasingly blue state. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has gained a conservative supermajority with a record of siding with conservative religious litigants who argue that LGBTQ protections violate their First Amendment rights. People in a gay pride parade pass by the Colorado State Capitol in Denver on June 19, 2016. AP Photo/Brennan Linsley During the past decade, Colorado has defended its legal protections for queer people three times before the Supreme Court. Each time it has lost. In the 2018 case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, a baker sued the state government, claiming that he had a free speech right and a religious free exercise right to refuse to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Both the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled against the baker, on the grounds that such a refusal was sexual-orientation discrimination in violation of state law.But in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court vacated those rulings. Importantly, the majority did so on procedural grounds connected to a different issue. They left unanswered the underlying questions about how to balance the First Amendment with antidiscrimination law.Five years later, the court heard a similar case where a web designer sought a right to refuse to make wedding websites for same-sex couples. Unlike the baker, the designer had never been asked to provide services for a same-sex couple’s wedding. Instead, she proactively sued her home state, including the director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division, Aubrey Elenis, in her official capacity.In a controversial 6-3 decision, 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court held that the designer had a free speech right to refuse to make wedding websites for same-sex couples. The majority opinion, however, did not acknowledge that doing so would amount to discrimination.Finally, in March 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar, a case about whether Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy,” which tries to change minors’ sexual orientation or gender identity, violated a therapist’s First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court did not address that underlying question; however, the justices did decide 8-1 that Colorado’s ban amounted to “viewpoint discrimination,” which occurs when a law regulates certain viewpoints but not others. Members of ‘Concerned Women for America’ pray outside the Supreme Court building in Washington as justices hear arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case on ‘conversion therapy,’ in 2025. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images The justices sent the case back to a lower court for further deliberation. But viewpoint discrimination is normally considered a violation of the First Amendment, which makes it likely that the medical providers advocating for a right to engage in conversion therapy would ultimately win their case.The case prompted an outcry from queer people who have been harmed by the widely discredited practice, as well as their allies and scholars of LGBTQ issues.4th time in 10 yearsIt is no coincidence that the plaintiffs challenging Colorado’s laws in all three cases were represented by attorneys from the same organization: Alliance Defending Freedom, the country’s largest conservative Christian legal advocacy organization.Alliance Defending Freedom has helped litigate many high-profile culture war cases. Based in Arizona, the group has been active in taking on pro bono cases for conservative Christians who object to antidiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people in Colorado and elsewhere.When oral arguments for St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy take place, Colorado will once again find itself defending its laws preventing discrimination against LGBTQ people in front of the high court. The court’s track record suggests it will likely face another uphill battle.Mark Satta does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.