Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-111_new2_22p3.pdf
Page Number: 26

Cite as:  584 U. S. ____ (2018) 

1 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 16–111 
_________________ 

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF 

COLORADO
 

[June 4, 2018]

 JUSTICE  GORSUCH,  with  whom  JUSTICE  ALITO  joins,

in  many  quarters. 

concurring.
  In  Employment  Div.,  Dept.  of  Human  Resources  of  Ore. 
v.  Smith,  this  Court  held  that  a  neutral  and  generally
applicable  law  will  usually  survive  a  constitutional  free 
exercise challenge.  494 U. S. 872, 878–879 (1990).  Smith 
remains  controversial 
Compare
McConnell,  The  Origins  and  Historical  Understanding  of 
Free  Exercise  of  Religion,  103  Harv.  L.  Rev.  1409  (1990),
with  Hamburger,  A  Constitutional  Right  of  Religious
Exemption:  An  Historical  Perspective,  60  Geo.  Wash.  L. 
Rev.  915  (1992).  But  we  know  this  with  certainty:  when
the  government  fails  to  act  neutrally  toward  the  free 
exercise of religion, it tends to run into trouble.  Then the 
government  can  prevail  only  if  it  satisfies  strict  scrutiny, 
showing that its restrictions on religion both serve a com-
pelling  interest  and  are  narrowly  tailored.    Church  of 
Lukumi  Babalu  Aye,  Inc.  v.  Hialeah,  508  U. S.  520,  546 
(1993).

Today’s decision respects these principles.  As the Court 
explains,  the  Colorado  Civil  Rights  Commission  failed  to 
act neutrally toward Jack Phillips’s religious faith.  Maybe
most notably, the Commission allowed three other bakers
to  refuse  a  customer’s  request  that  would  have  required 
them to violate their secular commitments.  Yet it denied