Amicus Curiae Brief — St. Mary Catholic Parish, Littleton, Colorado, et al., Petitioners v. Lisa Roy, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, et al.

Supreme Court briefAug 24, 2026

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 25-581

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

————

ST. MARY CATHOLIC PARISH, LITTLETON, COLORADO,

et al.,

Petitioners,

LISA ROY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT

OF EARLY CHILDHOOD, et al.,

Respondents.

————

On Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

————

BRIEF OF AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC.

AS AMICUS CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

————

GEOFFREY T. BLACKWELL

Counsel of Record

AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC.

PO Box 58637

Philadelphia, PA 19121

(908) 276-7300, ext. 310

legal@atheists.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

August 24, 2026

WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................

iii

INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE ..................

STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT ................

ARGUMENT ........................................................

Colorado’s nondiscrimination requirement meets strict scrutiny .......................

A. The prevention of invidious discrimination is a compelling government

interest .................................................

B. Accommodating Petitioners by removing nondiscrimination requirements

causes substantial harm to children

and families .........................................

Widespread,

religiously

motivated,

invidious discrimination against the

nonreligious does serious, lasting harm ..

A. Nonreligious

Americans

face

widespread religious discrimination...

1. Religious

private

schools

discriminate against nonreligious

Americans .......................................

2. Religious social service providers

discriminate against nonreligious

Americans .......................................

B. Nonreligious Americans reported widespread religious discrimination and

suffered serious, long-lasting harm ....

CONCLUSION ....................................................

II.

(i)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page(s)

ACLU v. Black Horse Pike Regional

Bd. of Educ.,

84 F.3d 1471 (3d Cir. 1996) ......................

Bob Jones Univ. v. United States,

461 U.S. 574 (1983) ...................................

2-4

Bowen v. Roy,

476 U.S. 693 (1986) ...................................

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,

573 U.S. 682 (2014) ...................................

5, 6

Carson v. Makin,

596 U.S. 767 (2022) ...................................

Corp. of Presiding Bishop of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day

Saints v. Amos,

483 U.S. 327 (1987) ...................................

Cutter v. Wilkinson,

544 U.S. 709 (2005) ...................................

Edwards v. Aguillard,

482 U.S. 578 (1987) ...................................

Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.,

472 U.S. 703 (1985) ............................... 2, 3, 5, 6

Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Com.,

480 U.S. 136 (1987) ...................................

5, 6

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Bd. of Educ.,

333 U.S. 203 (1948) ...................................

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

597 U.S. 507 (2022) ...................................

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

St. Dominic Acad. v. Makin,

744 F. Supp. 3D 43 (D. Me. 2024), aff’d

in part and rev’d on separate grounds,

181 F.4th 11 (1st Cir. 2026)......................

St. Mary Cath. Par. in Littleton v. Roy,

154 F.4th 752 (10th Cir. 2025) .................

2-4

Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock,

489 U.S. 1 (1989) .......................................

5, 6

Wis. v. Yoder,

406 U.S. 205 (1972) ...................................

5, 6

Walz v. Tax Com. of New York,

397 U.S. 664 (1970) ...................................

5, 6

Zorach v. Clauson,

343 U.S. 306 (1952) ...................................

CONSTITUTION

U.S. Const. amend. I ....................................

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Somjen Frazer, Abby El-Zhifei, & Alison M.

Gill, Reality Check: Being Nonreligious in

America (2020), https://www.secularsurv

ey.org/s/Reality-CheckBeing-Nonreligio

us-in-America.pdf ................................. 7, 17, 18

Somjen Frazer, Abby El-Zhifei, & Alison M.

Gill, The Tipping Point Generation:

America’s Nonreligious Youth (2020),

https://www.secularsurvey.org/s/The-Tip

ping-Point-Generation-Americas-Nonrel

igious-Youth.pdf .................................... 7, 17, 18

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

Survey Responses, 2019 U.S. Secular

Survey (Nov. 2, 2019)................................ 7-16

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE1

American Atheists, Inc., is a national 501(c)(3) civil

rights organization that works to achieve religious

equality for all Americans by protecting what Thomas

Jefferson called the “wall of separation” between government and religion created by the First Amendment.

American Atheists strives to promote understanding

of atheists through education, advocacy, and communitybuilding; works to end the stigma associated with

atheism; and fosters an environment where bigotry

against our community is rejected.

In 2019, American Atheists conducted the largest

survey of nonreligious Americans ever fielded,

including more than 1,000 Colorado residents and

represents Colorado families eligible for the program

at issue here. Based on data from this survey and the

testimonials of atheists and other nonreligious

Americans who face discrimination because of their

nonreligious identity, American Atheists is uniquely

able to illustrate the harms of discrimination faced by

the people it represents. As a membership organization representing the interests of atheist and

nonreligious families across the country, American

Atheists opposes any effort to allow invidious religious

discrimination against children participating in publicly

funded education programs in the United States.

Amicus has no parent company nor has it issued stock. No

counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no

party or counsel for a party made a monetary contribution

intended to fund its preparation or submission. No person other

than amici made a monetary contribution to the preparation or

submission of this brief.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The Petitioners seek a complete exemption from the

nondiscrimination requirement the State of Colorado

imposes on preschools participating in its Universal

Preschool Program. Such an exemption would allow

Petitioners and other religious preschools participating in the program to engage in invidious

discrimination, including discrimination that the

Constitution prohibits, while receiving government

backing. Such a holding would have serious consequences throughout the country, particularly in states

where leadership is overtly hostile toward minority

communities.

Colorado seeks to provide its people with the

opportunity to receive a high-quality preschool

education. St. Mary Cath. Par. in Littleton v. Roy, 154

F.4th 752, 757 (10th Cir. 2025). Colorado, like every

other state, has a compelling interest in preventing

invidious discrimination in publicly funded education

programs. Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S.

574, 604 (1983).

In order to ensure that it achieves that aim,

Colorado implemented a requirement that all

preschools participating in the program agree to a

nondiscrimination provision. Accommodating the

Petitioner’s religious exercise in this case would

impose an unconscionable burden on those who are not

receiving the accommodation, Estate of Thornton v.

Caldor, Inc., 472 U.S. 703, 710 (1985), namely, the

children and families of Colorado.

The nonreligious community has long suffered from

invidious discrimination by religious entities providing

education, as well as social support services. This

discrimination comes in numerous forms and has

longlasting, deleterious consequences for children

and families. Children from nonreligious families who

manage to get enrolled at religious schools have been

denied food, excluded from group activities, and been

denied opportunities for academic achievement and

advancement.

No American should be forced to fund, through their

own tax dollars, their own mistreatment. Colorado,

rightly, imposes its nondiscrimination requirement in

order to avoid exactly that. It must be allowed to

continue protecting its residents.

ARGUMENT

I. Colorado’s nondiscrimination

ment meets strict scrutiny.

require-

Colorado established its UPK program so that all

families in the state could provide their children with

a high-quality preschool education. St. Mary Cath. Par.

in Littleton v. Roy, 154 F.4th 752, 757 (10th Cir. 2025).

A key mechanism used by the state to ensure that

such an opportunity is not a hollow promise was

the requirement that all preschools participating in

the program agree to a nondiscrimination provision.

Preventing such invidious discrimination is a compelling government interest that justifies a restriction

on religious exercise. Bob Jones Univ. v. United

States, 461 U.S. 574, 604 (1983). Accommodating the

Petitioner’s religious exercise in this case would

impose an unconscionable burden on those who are not

receiving the accommodation, Estate of Thornton v.

Caldor, Inc., 472 U.S. 703, 710 (1985), namely, the

children and families of Colorado.

A. The prevention of invidious discrimination is a compelling government

interest.

Over 40 years ago, this Court found that the

government’s interest in preventing invidious discrimination in education is “fundamental [and] overriding.”

Bob Jones at 604. The Court explained that “not all

burdens on religion are unconstitutional. The state

may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing

that it is essential to accomplish an overriding

governmental interest.” Id. at 603 (cleaned up). The

Court in Bob Jones specifically concluded that the

denial of a financial benefit to a religious school, while

burdensome, “will not prevent those schools from

observing their religious tenets.” Id. at 604; see also

Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693, 706 (1986).

The Petitioners here seek a complete exemption

from the UPK’s nondiscrimination requirements, permitting them to discriminate on the basis of not only

sexual orientation and gender identity but also on the

basis of religion and race. St. Mary, 154 F.4th at 757.

As will be discussed below in Part II, permitting

invidious religious discrimination in government funded

social programs, and in education specifically, can have

disastrous long-term consequences for children and

families, exactly the kind of harm Colorado seeks to

prevent through the nondiscrimination provision.

Nondiscrimination provisions like Colorado’s, which

have no exemptions or carve-outs and are limited to

suspect classes, have been found to be narrowly

tailored to the compelling interest of preventing

discrimination in education. St. Dominic Acad. v.

Makin, 744 F. Supp. 3D 43, 79 (D. Me. 2024), aff’d in

part and rev’d on separate grounds, 181 F.4th 11 (1st

Cir. 2026).

B. Accommodating Petitioners by removing nondiscrimination requirements

causes substantial harm to children

and families.

Exempting religious entities from legal obligations

in a manner that directly and substantively harms

others “contravenes a fundamental principle of the

Religion Clauses.” Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.,

472 U.S. 703, 710 (1985). A religious exemption that

gives “preference [to] some at the expense of others”

does not accommodate religion, but rather amounts to

an unconstitutional establishment of religion. ACLU v.

Black Horse Pike Regional Bd. of Educ., 84 F.3d 1471,

1488 (3d Cir. 1996); see also Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 729 n.37 (2014); Cutter v.

Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 720 (2005); Texas Monthly,

Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 28 (1989); Edwards v.

Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 617-18 (1987); Corp. of

Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 334-35 (1987);

Thornton, 472 U.S. at 710; Wis. v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205,

220-21 (1972). Such preferential treatment bends the

“play in the joints” between the religion clauses beyond

the breaking point. Walz v. Tax Com. of New York, 397

U.S. 664, 669 (1970); see also Hobbie v. Unemployment

Appeals Com., 480 U.S. 136, 144-45, 145 n.11 (1987);

Presiding Bishop, 483 U.S. at 334-35 (“At some point,

accommodation may devolve into an unlawful

fostering of religion.” (internal quotation marks

omitted)). It is a perversion of religious liberty and

turns the intent of the Framers on its head.

This Court regularly strikes down purported accommodations of religious exercise that place substantive

burdens on the shoulders of those not benefiting from

the exemption and thus violate the government’s

obligation of neutrality between religious denominations and between religion and nonreligion, Thornton,

472 U.S. at 710 (statute’s “unyielding weighting in

favor of Sabbath observers over all other interests”

was invalid); see also Texas Monthly, 489 U.S. at 15,

while exemptions that have a de minimus impact on

the interests of third parties have been deemed

permissible accommodations, Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at

732; Hobbie, 480 U.S. at 145 n.11; Yoder, 406 U.S. at

234; Walz, 397 U.S. at 673; Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S.

306, 315 (1952). Compare Illinois ex rel. McCollum v.

Bd. of Educ., 333 U.S. 203 (1948) with Zorach v.

Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).

As will be discussed in the next section,

accommodating religious preschools by absolving

them of any need to comply with nondiscrimination

requirements does substantial harm to the children

and families that Colorado’s UPK program is intended

to serve. Nonreligious children at religious schools

have been denied meals, denied opportunities for

academic advancement, excluded from activities, and

excluded from enrollment altogether as a result of

their families’ nonreligious beliefs. Discriminatory

actions like these, which the Court would allow if it

sides with the Petitioners, cause serious, long-lasting

damage to the children and families subjected to

invidious discrimination. This Court must balance

these harms against the interests of the Petitioners,

who face only a financial loss.

II. Widespread, religiously motivated, invidious

discrimination against the nonreligious

does serious, lasting harm.

Atheist children and families, both in Colorado and

around the country, experience the harmful consequences of invidious religious discrimination first

hand each and every day. In 2019, American Atheists

conducted the U.S. Secular Survey in order to assess

the needs and experiences of atheist, agnostic,

Humanist, and otherwise-nonreligious Americans.

Somjen Frazer, Abby El-Zhifei, & Alison M. Gill,

Reality Check: Being Nonreligious in America, 4 (2020),

https://www.secularsurvey.org/s/Reality-CheckBeingNonreligious-in-America.pdf (hereinafter “Reality

Check”). Nearly 34,000 individuals responded to the

survey.2 Id. at 15. More than one thousand

respondents were Colorado residents. Id. More than

one in ten (3,421) participants were between the ages

of 18 and 24 (inclusive). S. Frazer, A. El-Shafei, &

Alison Gill, The Tipping Point Generation: America’s

Nonreligious Youth (2020), https://www.secularsurvey.

org/s/The-Tipping-Point-Generation-Americas-Nonrel

igious-Youth.pdf (hereinafter “Tipping Point). Their

individual experiences, and the trends captured by the

survey, put the impact of invidious discrimination by

religious entities into stark relief.

A. Nonreligious Americans face widespread

religious discrimination.

Participants in the U.S. Secular Survey were given

an opportunity to describe their experiences of invidious

religious discrimination in their own words. Over

9,000 of them provided written responses. Survey

Responses, 2019 U.S. Secular Survey (Nov. 2, 2019) (on

file with amicus) (“Survey Responses”). Many described

instances in which they faced discrimination in

The 33,897 participants are a convenience sample and the

survey “is not generalizable to the entire nonreligious population

of the United States.” Reality Check at 48. The individual

experiences of discrimination experienced by the participants,

and the resulting harm to them, are nonetheless probative. Their

voices must be heard.

religious private education and by religious entities

providing community services. The responses

illuminate the many forms religious discrimination

can take and the degree to which discrimination, or the

threat thereof, discourages people from seeking out

services.

1. Religious private schools discriminate

against nonreligious Americans.

In the present case, invidious discrimination by

religious preschools and daycares is often framed as a

question of merely whether a child is admitted to a

particular daycare. However, nondiscrimination provisions generally, and Colorado’s UPK nondiscrimination

requirement specifically, protect against more insidious

forms of discrimination as well. One American

Atheists member and Colorado resident,3 who

attended a religious daycare as a child, described being

“sent away from the snack table” after they “refus[ed]

to pray before daycare snacks.” They also faced

harassment for ”refus[ing] to say ‘one nation under

God’ in the pledge.” See Survey Responses. It is one

thing for a daycare or school to simply refuse a child’s

enrollment. There, a family can (hopefully) receive

services from a different facility more interested in

caring for children than indoctrinating its own

religious beliefs. But to enroll a child, to be entrusted

by parents with the care of their child, and then deny

that child food because the family’s beliefs are

different than the daycare’s beliefs is truly heinous.

Yet Petitioners here argue that religious entities must

Respondents were anonymous but did provide demographic

information, including the state in which they resided at the time

of their participation in the U.S. Secular Survey. See Survey

Responses.

be allowed to engage in such discrimination while

administering a government program.

Many parents4, either because of their nonreligious

beliefs or simply out of a concern to avoid harmful

religious discrimination, may desire to send their

children to participating preschools with specifically

secular curricula. Those parents are likely to face two

significant hurdles: First, there may be “preschool

deserts,” areas in which the only practical preschool

options are sectarian. Second, schools with religious

elements in their curricula often do not make that fact

apparent prior to a child’s enrollment.

Secular preschool deserts (ie., communities in which

there are no practical secular preschool options for

nonreligious parents) exist in communities around the

United States. Multiple participants in the U.S.

Secular Survey reported having no choice but to enroll

their child in a religious preschool or daycare5 because

secular options simply were not available.6 See Id. One

Alabama resident explained: “It has been hard to find

a daycare that isn’t Christian, let alone atheist. Our

daughter is in a Jewish daycare and they respect that

our family is atheist and that we don’t say the pledge

While the present case arises only from Colorado’s UPK

program, other states may create similar programs. Parents

residing in those states would face essentially the same

circumstances as parents residing in Colorado.

Nonreligious parents who homeschool their children reported

similar struggles. See Id.

This Court recently dealt with the situation faced by the State

of Maine, where significant portions of the population reside in

what can only be characterized as public school deserts. Carson v.

Makin, 596 U.S. 767, 773 (2022).

of allegiance.” See Id. An American Atheists member

in California recalled:

The greatest stigmatization occurred when I

was a child. The best day care and after school

programs were religious. At first, I was

included in activities, like choir and church

services, and I could choose to participate or

just sit quietly, but later I was asked to not

even attend, so I had to sit outside with a

single guardian and no other children.

See Id.

Even when parents are able to find a preschool or

daycare that presents itself as secular, they cannot be

sure the program will actually meet that expectation.

One Mississippian explained: “My son’s private,

supposedly secular daycare apparently says prayers

before lunch every day and puts on an incredibly

awkward and racist Thanksgiving celebration.” See Id.

A parent in Texas described a similar experience,

stating “I have to allow my 4 yr old to be a part of

the ‘traditional’ nativity Christmas program at his

NONRELIGIOUS school.” See Id. (emphasis in

original).

Nonreligious parents whose choices are limited to

religious preschools and daycares face burdens that

parents able to enroll their children in preschools that

share their beliefs do not face. One parent (a different

California resident) described the challenge of having

to constantly counter the religious indoctrination their

child was subjected to:

[M]y son went to a religious preschool for the

sake of affordability and we were very careful

to talk to him about what he learned in chapel

every [morning]. It was a STEM school

outside of that, so he got a heaping dose of

science too, and we always checked to make

sure it was real science.

See Id. The challenges go beyond the need to engage in

more vigilant oversight of the education of their

children. One Michigan parent described the constant

fear they face: “I am terrified for my children if their

daycare teachers find out we are an atheist family. I

am scared that they will no longer receive equal or

adequate care.” See Id.

Of course, this discrimination is not limited to the

daycare and preschool settings. Several parents who

participated in the survey described having the same

struggles when homeschooling their children. A Texas

parent explained:

I homeschool my two youngest daughters,

both teenagers, and find that the majority of

homeschool groups and classes are religious

based, and non-religious people are not

welcome. Many co-op groups require signed

statements of faith! Although there are

secular groups and classes, their definition

of secular is often not the same as mine

(there is often a lack of fact based science or

the idea that curriculum with religious

over/undertones is acceptable if it is

otherwise a good curriculum, neither of which

is acceptable to me.) ... There is definitely a

stigma among homeschoolers against nonreligious homeschoolers, and even against

religious homeschoolers who teach using only

secular materials.

See Id.

Nonreligious grade school students at religious

private schools regularly face discrimination that can

have serious academic consequences. One Florida

resident described their childhood experience:

I was sent to Christian schools when I was

young. I was a good student. In my junior

year, I did not get into the National Honor

Society even though I met all the criteria —

my principal called me into his office and told

me that while my grades and activities were

excellent, they felt that I did not ‘have a

strong enough relationship with the Lord’ so

they did not put me into National Honor

Society. I will never forget the anger I felt in

that moment.

See Id. A Massachusetts child was subjected to even

more severe treatment:

I was indifferent to religion until I attended a

private Catholic school. My teacher told me

that if I didn't eat the 'flesh of Christ' I

wouldn't be allowed to pass into the next

grade. I ate the pasty wafer and went back to

public school the next year.

See Id.

It should not go unremarked upon that exempting

religious schools from nondiscrimination requirements

impacts the employees of these facilities as well. Eight

educators who participated in the survey remarked

upon the issues they face on the job at religious private

schools. One Texas teacher explained:

[W]hen I am with students, I must be mindful

of only expressing opinions that align with

the Catholic faith tradition. At other times, I

use the socratic method to encourage

students [to] use their critical thinking skills

when I cannot answer their queries directly.

See Id. A Utah teacher had a similar experience:

I teach at a Christian school. The administration is aware that I am secular, but feels that

I am a good enough teacher so that they're

comfortable having me around. However, I am

under a gag order so I can’t be openly secular

in front of my colleagues, let alone the

students. (Since my colleagues regularly talk

about their faith in front of students, my

reticence in the matter has often led to

awkward conversations.)7

See Id. Another participant, an Ohioan, described how

broadly the restrictions can spread:

I work at a religious daycare, where I have to

hide my true beliefs. We’ve had physical

therapists be told they can’t do yoga with the

kids, as well as teachers they couldn't

meditate/do yoga in the lounge. The kids can

dress up for Halloween (after a lot of fighting

for it) but can’t be witches or ghosts. I

regularly lie about believing in god… just for

fear of my coworkers judging me.

See Id. Similarly, an Indiana professor stated, “I work

at a Catholic University and do not feel comfortable

If they worked at a preschool in Colorado, these Texas and

Utah residents’ responses would bring this Court’s recent

religious jurisprudence into direct conflict with its recent free

speech jurisprudence. Their employers would be restricting their

expressive activity while administering a government program,

implicating Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. 597 U.S. 507,

543-44 (2022).

telling people I'm an atheist. If directly asked I would

answer truthfully, but I do not volunteer that

information.” See Id.

Beyond discrimination is the specter of actual abuse.

One Californian put this into stark relief:

As an infant and toddler I was abused in a

church owned daycare, and the pastor of our

church sexually abused my mom. We left that

church when I was 4. We went to many

churches throughout my childhood, but it was

clear no church would accept us as abuse

victims/survivors of the church, and I couldn’t

stand the hypocrisy of Christians who turned

their back on us because my mom refused to

“forgive” the pastor.

See Id. A Missouri parent described daycare staff’s

emotionally abusive tactics:

My child’s day care discovered that I was an

atheist. At the time, I had just left my

husband because he treated me like dirt

because I came out as an atheist. He was

stalking me, I had a restraining order and the

day care workers were well aware of it. One

day, I arrived to pick up my daughter and the

day care worker pretended that [my husband]

picked up my child, leading me to believe that

she had been kidnapped. It was a cruel prank

on her behalf because she thought I’d beg her

god for help.

See Id.

Were this Court to side with the Petitioners in this

case, it would be enabling preschools providing a

government-funded service to engage in all the

discriminatory conduct described by these nonreligious

Americans.

2. Religious social service providers

discriminate against nonreligious

Americans.

The states have enlisted the assistance of religious

entities when providing numerous, vital social services.

Unfortunately, invidious, religiously motivated discrimination against nonreligious Americans is just as

prevalent in that context and often happens with the

government’s knowledge and support.

Over half a dozen participants in the survey faced

discriminatory actions when receiving substance use

disorder treatment services, often as part of a

government-mandated recovery program. One South

Carolinian said that, “[a]s a recovering addict, I have

been mocked, ridiculed and told I have no chance of

recovery unless I accept spiritual principles and

believe in some deity.” See Id. One Michigander

described their experience and the steps they are

trying to take to remedy the problem faced by

nonreligious people recovering from addiction:

Religiosity and religious discrimination is

rampant in Alcoholics Anonymous. That’s

why many of us with long-term sobriety in AA

(36 years in my case) are advocating for a

more secular AA by organizing and starting

new secular AA groups and meetings.

See Id. A Texan recovering from addiction put it

another way: “An atheist in conventional AA is highly

problematic. ‘Get God or die’ doesn’t work for us.” See

Id.

Nonreligious Americans seeking to volunteer and

assist those in need face issues as well. Another

Michigander recounted:

When I mentored refugees in Grand Rapids,

the new person in charge dropped me from

consideration upon learning that I was

atheist. I spent six childhood years in WWII

refugee camps and had something to

[contribute].

See Id.

A Washington state educator described being

“[s]urreptitiously removed from volunteer teaching

math/science in a home school collaborative.” See Id.

One New Jersey family facing a truly tragic

situation reported the mistreatment they faced:

Back in 2007, my wife and I had to relocate to

Dallas and had to stay in a Christian-based

homeless shelter with our two children. After

about a month and a half, we were asked to

leave because my wife identified as "Wiccan".

They also had not just weekly chapel services

(where they passed around the collection

plate - to homeless people), but every Sunday

was recycling chapel services. Ended one

service, then back into another immediately

in the same chapel. When we were asked to

leave, they actually told us, "You two can

leave, but you can leave your children with

us." We took our children with us.

See Id (cleaned up) (emphasis in original).

B. Nonreligious Americans reported widespread religious discrimination and

suffered serious, long-lasting harm.

These anecdotal experiences show the real-world

impact that religious discrimination has on children

and families and the numbers show that they are not

outliers. Participants in the U.S. Secular Survey were

asked whether, in the prior three years, they had

“experienced a negative event related to being secular

or nonreligious” in a variety of settings. Reality Check

at 22. Nearly three in ten of those responding reported

facing discrimination in education (29.4%).8 Id. at 24.

That number was even higher for those between the

ages of 18 and 24: “[N]early one third (33.6%) of youth

participants who attend school or who have children

attending school reported having had negative

experiences in an educational setting within the past

three years because of their nonreligious identity.”

Tipping Point at 9.

Discrimination in education can have a lifelong negative impact on young people,

and unfortunately, the data shows that

nonreligious youth experience significant

discrimination across the country because of

their nonreligious beliefs. This type of

discrimination can lead to young people being

Another 7.2% reported being “unsure” if they faced

discrimination in education.

The answer ‘unsure’ was included because it is common

for members of stigmatized groups to be unsure

whether discrimination is occurring, either because

they have low expectations about their treatment by

others or because of some other form of ambiguity in

the situation.

Reality Check at 22.

pushed out of school, to young people choosing

not to seek out higher education, and to

negative health and psychological outcomes,

all of which can have significant implications

for employment and future earning potential.

Id.

One in ten (10.6%)9 reported facing potential

discrimination when receiving public benefits. Reality

Check at 24. Discrimination was also notable in other

settings in which religious entities are the dominant

players. More than 20% of respondents reported

potentially facing discrimination when doing volunteer work. Id. A similar proportion of respondents

faced potential discrimination in the provision of

mental health services and, separately, substance

abuse services. Id. Over 15% reported potential

discrimination when receiving other forms of health

care services. Id. Five percent faced discrimination

when seeking to adopt or foster children. Id. at 25.

Experiences of discrimination (and the associated

stigma) are linked to a significantly higher tendency

to screen positive for depression. Id. at 30. In

particular, those who reported facing discrimination in

the provision of public benefits were twice as likely to

suffer from depression (99.6% increase). Id. “Those

[age 18-24] who reported education discrimination due

to their nonreligious beliefs were 13.6% more likely to

screen positive for depression than those that did not.”

Tipping Point at 14.

This discrimination is widespread and leads to

serious, long-lasting damage. States like Colorado

For younger participants (age 18-24), that proportion was

higher: 13.7%. Tipping Point at 10.

have a compelling interest in guarding against such

discrimination and the nondiscrimination requirement Colorado imposes on all providers in the UPK

program is narrowly tailored to that end. The U.S.

Constitution permits, and sound governance and

common sense commend, the state to do so.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, American Atheists

urges the Court to uphold Colorado’s UPK program

and find against the Petitioners on both questions

presented.

Respectfully submitted,

GEOFFREY T. BLACKWELL

Counsel of Record

AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC.

PO Box 58637

Philadelphia, PA 19121

(908) 276-7300, ext. 310

legal@atheists.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

August 24, 2026

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.