Within a few days of the article's publication, the city suspended CSS's contract; the Bethany Christian Service had been able to work a deal to accept foster care from same-sex couples to maintain theirs.

CSS also had argued from the recent Supreme Court decision of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission that they had been subject to hostility from the city based on anti-religious prejudice.

CSS asked the Court to overrule its 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith which held that "neutral and generally applicable laws" that only incidentally burden the free exercise of religion are subject to rational basis review.

[5] The city of Philadelphia argued that the law is neutral and generally applicable, as required by Smith, and that the Court's ruling in CSS's favor would impinge on the civil rights of not only LGBT individuals but potentially those of such groups as religious minorities.

Justice Samuel Alito noted that the case wasn't about same-sex couples in Philadelphia having the opportunity to be foster parents, but it's “the fact the city can’t stand the message that Catholic Social Services and the Archdiocese are sending by continuing to adhere to the old-fashioned view about marriage.”[9] The key issues discussed during oral argument were general applicability under Smith, whether CSS is running a government program or the recipient of a license to provide a service, comparison to other forms of discrimination, and why the case was before the Court when no same-sex couples had ever been turned down by CSS.

[6] According to the New York Times, questions posed by newly appointed Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett during the case's oral arguments were "evenhanded and did not reveal her position.

[14] Roberts wrote "it is plain that the city's actions have burdened CSS's religious exercise by putting it to the choice of curtailing its mission or approving relationships inconsistent with its beliefs.

"[15] Roberts wrote that foster care services do not fall as a public accommodation, and as such, the Court applied strict scrutiny review of the city's policies towards any potential discrimination.

[12][18] Mark Joseph Stern for Slate opined that Roberts had written the opinion in a narrow matter to minimize the impact on LGBT rights so as to bring the liberal members of the Court into joining with the majority.

[20] Richard Garnett of Notre Dame Law School said that the unanimous ruling reaffirming this trend in free exercise jurisprudence was "highly significant" and gained support from the Court's liberal wing.

[12][21] Philadelphia's City Solicitor Diana Cortes called the ruling a "difficult and disappointing setback" but was also gratified that the decision did not "radically change existing constitutional law to adopt a standard that would force court-ordered religious exemptions from civic obligations in every arena.

[21] "It’s a beautiful day when the highest court in the land protects foster moms and the 200-year-old religious ministry that supports them", said Lori Windham, the senior counsel at Becket who argued the case in Fulton.

[22] Ronald E. Richter, the CEO of New York City's largest foster care system, stated that the decision "to allow private agencies that receive tax dollars to provide government services to discriminate against LGBTQ+ families like mine is devastating for the human rights of people who identify as LGBTQ+".

[18] However, the ACLU LGBT + HIV Project, which helped to defend two agencies on behalf of the city, supported the ruling, stating that the Court denied "opponents of LGBTQ equality" the "constitutional right to opt out of [non-discrimination protections] when discrimination is motivated by religious beliefs".

The Family Research Council called the ruling "a substantial win for religious liberty", and "In a time of growing hostility towards religion, the Supreme Court's reaffirmation of this fundamental freedom is even more critical.

"[23] American attorney Roger Severino who served as the director of the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at the United States Department of Health and Human Services opined that "religious liberty won 9 votes" in a "nearly unbroken religious-freedom win streak now stretches back decades, essentially all the way to the Employment Division v. Smith decision from 1990 ...