Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

8 

ESPINOZA v. MONTANA DEPT. OF REVENUE 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

U. S., at 733 (Scalia, J., dissenting).  They are evident in the 
fact that, unlike other constitutional rights, the mere expo-
sure  to  religion  can  render  an  “ ‘offended  observer’ ”  suffi-
ciently injured to bring suit against the government, Amer-
ican Legion, 588 U. S., at ___ (GORSUCH, J., concurring in
judgment) (slip op., at 2), even if he has not been coerced in
any way to participate in a religious practice, Lee, 505 U. S., 
at 584; Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421, 430 (1962).2  We also 
see them in the special privilege of taxpayer standing in Es-
tablishment Clause challenges, even though such suits di-
rectly contravene Article III’s restrictions on standing.  See 
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U. S. 
587, 618 (2007) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment); see also 
Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U. S. 589, 618–620 (1988); Flast v. 
Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 102–104 (1968).  And they persist in
the repeated denigration of those who continue to adhere to
traditional moral standards, as well as laws even remotely 
influenced by such standards, as outmoded at best and big-
oted at worst.  See Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado 
Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (THOMAS, J., 
concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at
14);  Obergefell  v.  Hodges,  576  U. S.  644,  712  (2015)
(ROBERTS,  C. J.,  dissenting).    So  long  as  this  hostility  re-
mains, fostered by our distorted understanding of the Es-
tablishment  Clause,  free  exercise  rights  will  continue  to
suffer. 

* 

* 
As I have recently explained, this Court has an unfortu-
nate  tendency  to  prefer  certain  constitutional  rights  over
others.  See  United  States  v.  Sineneng-Smith,  ante,  at  6 

* 

—————— 

2 This stands in striking contrast to the Court’s view in the free speech
context that “the burden normally falls upon the viewer” to avoid offense
“simply by averting his eyes.”  Hill v. Colorado, 530 U. S. 703, 753, n. 3 
(2000)  (Scalia,  J.,  dissenting)  (quoting  Erznoznik  v.  Jacksonville,  422 
U. S. 205, 210–211 (1975); quotation altered)).