Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 54.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

7 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

the greatest disabilities.  Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U. S. 793, 
827–828 (2000) (plurality opinion).  A right meant to protect
minorities  instead  could  become  a  cudgel  to  ensure  con-
formity.

It doesn’t take a long or searching look through history or 
around  the  world  to  see  how  this  can  go.    In  the  century 
before our Nation’s founding, Oliver Cromwell promised to 
Catholics in Ireland:  “ ‘As to freedom of conscience, I med-
dle with no man’s conscience; but if you mean by that, lib-
erty  to  celebrate  the  Mass,  I  would  have  you  understand
that in no place where the power of the Parliament of Eng-
land  prevails  shall  that  be  permitted.’ ”    McDaniel,  435 
U. S., at 631, n. 2 (opinion of Brennan, J.) (quoting S. Hook,
Paradoxes of Freedom 23 (1962)); see also 1 T. Carlyle, Oli-
ver Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches 395 (1845) (recording 
Cromwell’s  October  19,  1649,  letter  to  the  Governor  of 
Ross).  Even today, in fiefdoms small and large, people of 
faith are made to choose between receiving the protection 
of the State and living lives true to their religious convic-
tions. 

Of course, in public benefits cases like the one before us 
the stakes are not so dramatic.  Individuals are forced only
to choose between forgoing state aid or pursuing some as-
pect of their faith.  The government does not put a gun to
the head, only a thumb on the scale.  But, as so many of our 
cases explain, the Free Exercise Clause doesn’t easily toler-
ate  either;  any  discrimination  against  religious  exercise
must meet the demands of strict scrutiny.  In this way, the 
Clause seeks to ensure that religion remains “a matter of 
voluntary  choice  by  individuals  and  their  associations, 
[where]  each  sect  ‘ flourish[es]  according  to  the  zeal  of  its 
adherents and the appeal of its dogma,’ ” influenced by nei-
ther  where  the  government  points  its  gun  nor  where  it
places its thumb.  McDaniel, 435 U. S., at 640 (opinion of 
Brennan J.) (quoting Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 313 
(1952)).