Judge rules Catholic Charities has no property right to renewal of contract for adoption and foster care services

An Illinois state trial judge has thrown out the law suit filed by Catholic Charities of Illinois. The state of Illinois refused to renew the agency's contract to provide adoption and foster placement services because Catholic Charities said it would not place children with unmarried couples, including same-sex couples in civil unions. The agency sued.



Normally we think such lawsuits are about some religious freedom claim to discriminate. But in the first instance this suit was about whether Catholic Charities had a right to have its contract renewed. The agency claimed that because it had been renewed for 40 years, the state could not refuse to renew it this time without providing Due Process of law, which would include the right to present their point of view to a neutral decisionmaker.



The trial judge disagreed. He had previously granted an injunction against the contract termination in order to preserve the status quo. The injunction was granted on July 12. He heard argument on Wednesday and ruled yesterday. His short opinion concluded that "no citizen has a recognized legal right to a contract with the government."



Government attorneys argued on behalf of the state, but the ACLU of Illinois represented intervenors -- a lesbian couple wishing to become foster parents and a representative of all foster children in the state. The ACLU memoranda argued that since the state could not discriminate then a state contractor could not discriminate either.



The Thomas More Society, the "pro-life law center" representing Catholic Charities, has not decided what their next step will be.

Illinois rejects adoption restrictions

It's become commonplace for religiously affiliated adoption agencies to object to same-sex marriage or civil union bills on the ground that they will be forced to place children in homes with same-sex couples. Of course, if you ask them whether they will support same-sex marriage or civil union if they receive an exemption for adoption placements, they will still say "no." So, really, it becomes a disingenuous way to fight recognition of same-sex couples.

With Illinois about to allow civil unions, such agencies attempted to obtain legislation permitting them to decline to place children with a person in a civil union. Earlier this week, the bill failed in committee by one vote. The Illinois ACLU took the lead in opposing the bill. Its position paper against the bill is very forceful. Read it here. It points out that there is no child welfare basis for such a law and that it amounts to unconstitutional discrimination. One of its other arguments, which I love, is that such a law would send a "cruel and harmful message to gay and lesbian foster children: When you grow up, the agency that provides your care, would never let you take care of other kids."

Almost 15 years ago I wrote an article about the benefit to gay and lesbian children in foster care of openly licensing gay and lesbian foster parents. I don't usually hear that argument made in the political context. Kudos to the Illinois ACLU for making it here.