adoption agency

Abdiel Caban and Maria Mohammed began living together in New York City in September 1968. They continued until the end of 1973. During this time they held themselves out as husband and wife even though Caban remained married to another woman until 1974. Mohammed gave birth to two children during this period: David Andrew Caban on July 16, 1969, and Denise Caban on March 12, 1971. Caban was named as the father on both birth certificates. The couple jointly supported the children while living together as a family. In December 1973, Mohammed left Caban with the children and began residing with Kazin Mohammed, whom she married on January 30, 1974. For the following nine months, the children visited their maternal grandmother weekly, allowing Caban to see them regularly. In September 1974, the grandmother moved to Puerto Rico and took the children with her at the Mohammeds' request. Caban maintained contact through his parents in Puerto Rico. In November 1975, he traveled there to retrieve the children, returning with them to New York. Upon learning of the children's location, Maria Mohammed attempted to recover them with police assistance. The Mohammeds then initiated custody proceedings in New York Family Court. That court awarded temporary custody to the Mohammeds and granted visiting rights to Caban and his new wife, Nina. In January 1976, the Mohammeds filed a petition for adoption of the children under section 110 of the New York Domestic Relations Law. The Cabans responded with a cross-petition for adoption in March 1976. A hearing occurred before a Law Assistant to the Surrogate in Kings County, where both parties presented evidence and cross-examined witnesses. The Surrogate granted the Mohammeds' adoption petition. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the decision, relying on the Court of Appeals' ruling in In re Malpica-Orsini. The New York Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, leading to review by the United States Supreme Court.

Catholic Social Services (CSS), a foster care agency affiliated with the Catholic Church, has provided foster-care and related services in Philadelphia for over two centuries. During this period the Philadelphia foster-care system has depended on cooperation between the City and private agencies like CSS. CSS maintains the religious belief that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Therefore CSS will not certify same-sex married couples, although it will certify single gay and lesbian individuals and place gay and lesbian children. The agency has adhered to these beliefs while contracting with the City for over fifty years. No same-sex couple has ever sought certification from CSS. In 2018 a newspaper reported that CSS would not consider prospective foster parents in same-sex marriages. The City Council called for an investigation by the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations. The Department Commissioner met with CSS leadership and subsequently informed the agency that it would no longer receive referrals. Future contracts would require agreement to certify same-sex couples under the nondiscrimination provision in the standard foster-care contract and the city's Fair Practices Ordinance. CSS and three affiliated foster parents sued the City, the Department, and the Commission in federal district court. They alleged violations and sought injunctive relief. The district court denied preliminary relief. The Third Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the determination. The City's standard foster-care contract includes in section 3.21 a nondiscrimination provision requiring an agency not to reject prospective foster or adoptive parents based on sexual orientation unless an exception is granted by the Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee in his or her sole discretion. Certification as a foster parent involves a customized and selective assessment that includes background checks, medical exams, an in-depth home study considering mental and emotional adjustment and family relationships, and takes months to complete.

The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, as amended in 1988 and 1989, established several requirements governing the performance of abortions within the Commonwealth. The Act required a woman seeking an abortion to provide informed consent after receiving specific information from a physician or counselor at least twenty-four hours before the procedure. It mandated that a minor obtain the informed consent of one parent, subject to a judicial bypass option. It further required a married woman to sign a statement confirming that she had notified her husband of her planned abortion, unless certain exceptions applied. The Act also imposed reporting obligations on facilities providing abortion services and defined a medical emergency exception to the various requirements. Before any of these provisions took effect, the petitioners brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The petitioners were five abortion clinics and one physician representing himself as well as a class of physicians who provide abortion services. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief and challenged each provision as unconstitutional on its face. The District Court entered a preliminary injunction. After conducting a three-day bench trial, the District Court held all the provisions unconstitutional and entered a permanent injunction against their enforcement by Pennsylvania. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It adopted the District Court's factual findings and legal analysis except with respect to the spousal notification requirement. The Court of Appeals upheld the spousal notification requirement as constitutional and applied the undue burden standard in evaluating the provisions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Pennsylvania statute.