Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 16

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

abandoned that “ahistorical, atextual” approach to discern-
ing “Establishment Clause violations”; they observed that
other  courts  around  the  country  have  followed  suit  by  re-
nouncing it too; and they contended that the panel should 
have likewise “recognized Lemon’s demise and wisely left it 
dead.”  Ibid., and n. 3.  We granted certiorari.  595 U. S. ___ 
(2022). 

III 
Now before us, Mr. Kennedy renews his argument that 
the District’s conduct violated both the Free Exercise and 
Free  Speech  Clauses  of  the  First  Amendment.    These 
Clauses work in tandem.  Where the Free Exercise Clause 
protects religious exercises, whether communicative or not, 
the Free Speech Clause provides overlapping protection for 
expressive religious activities.  See, e.g., Widmar v. Vincent, 
454 U. S. 263, 269, n. 6 (1981); Rosenberger  v. Rector and 
Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 841 (1995).  That the 
First Amendment doubly protects religious speech is no ac-
cident.  It is a natural outgrowth of the framers’ distrust of 
government attempts to regulate religion and suppress dis-
sent.  See, e.g., A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Re-
ligious Assessments, in Selected Writings of James Madi-
son  21,  25  (R.  Ketcham  ed.  2006).   “[I]n  Anglo–American
history, . . . government suppression of speech has so com-
monly  been  directed  precisely  at  religious  speech  that  a
free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet with-
out the prince.”  Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. 
Pinette, 515 U. S. 753, 760 (1995). 

Under  this  Court’s  precedents,  a  plaintiff  bears  certain
burdens to demonstrate an infringement of his rights under
the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses.  If the plaintiff
carries these burdens, the focus then shifts to the defendant 
to show that its actions were nonetheless justified and tai-
lored consistent with the demands of our case law.  See, e.g., 
Fulton  v.  Philadelphia,  593  U. S.  ___,  ___–___,  ___  (2021)