In 2018, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the State of South Carolina agreed to waive their requirements of religious non-discrimination by state-funded, licensed child placement agencies. The state had discovered that its largest provider, Miracle Hill, approved the applications of only those who shared its Evangelical Protestant faith. After Miracle Hill refused on religious grounds to assess a Unitarian couple's fitness, the couple filed suit against various federal and state defendants, alleging that the waivers constituted an establishment of religion. This paper explores South Carolina's argument that Miracle Hill's asserted free exercise rights render irrelevant constraints that the Establishment Clause might place on this religious accommodation. I conclude that the state's reliance on Fulton is misplaced. Here, the state should be deemed constitutionally responsible for the religion-based exclusion of prospective foster parents. More controversially, I contend that the state should also be held constitutionally responsible for the religious indoctrination of children placed with families approved by Miracle Hill. Such responsibility has long been and should remain a central concern of the Establishment Clause and overcomes any countervailing free exercise interests of Miracle Hill or other faith-based providers. This focus on responsibility offers significant depth and nuance to conventional but vague Establishment Clause concepts about state support of religion.

中文翻译：

---

寄养和宗教条款之间日益紧张的关系：对罗杰斯诉 HHS 的评论

2018 年，美国卫生与公众服务部和南卡罗来纳州同意放弃其对国家资助、获得许可的儿童安置机构不歧视宗教的要求。该州发现其最大的供应商 Miracle Hill 只批准了那些分享其福音派新教信仰的人的申请。在 Miracle Hill 以宗教理由拒绝评估一神论夫妇的健康状况后，这对夫妇对联邦和州的各种被告提起诉讼，声称这些豁免构成了宗教信仰。本文探讨了南卡罗来纳州的论点，即 Miracle Hill 所主张的自由行使权利使建立条款可能对这种宗教适应施加的限制无关紧要。我的结论是，国家'错位了。在这里，国家应该在宪法上对基于宗教的未来养父母的排斥负有责任。更有争议的是，我认为国家也应该对安置在奇迹山批准的家庭中的儿童的宗教灌输负有宪法责任。这种责任长期以来一直是并且应该仍然是建立条款的核心问题，并克服了 Miracle Hill 或其他基于信仰的提供者的任何抵消自由行使利益。这种对责任的关注为关于国家支持宗教的传统但模糊的建制条款概念提供了显着的深度和细微差别。