Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 45.0

10 

SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON 

 GORSUCH, J., concurring
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

may be your only chance.

To the extent this is why some still invoke Lemon today,
it reflects poorly on us all.  Through history, the suppres-
sion  of  unpopular  religious  speech  and  exercise  has  been
among the favorite tools of petty tyrants.  See Pinette, 515 
U. S., at 760; Feldman v. United States, 322 U. S. 487, 501 
(1944) (Black, J., dissenting).  Our forebears resolved that 
this Nation would be different.  Here, they resolved, each
individual would enjoy the right to make sense of his rela-
tionship with the divine, speak freely about man’s place in 
creation, and have his religious practices treated with re-
spect.  See West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 
624, 642 (1943).  The day governments in this country for-
age for ways to abandon these foundational promises is a 
dark day for the cause of individual freedom.

Besides, even for those whose policy ambitions run in this 
direction, invoking Lemon is a myopic tactic.  For as long as
the First Amendment means anything, government policies 
that discriminate against religious speech and exercise will 
only invite litigation and result in losses like Boston’s.  To-
day’s case is just one more in a long line of reminders about 
the costs associated with governmental efforts to discrimi-
nate against disfavored religious speakers.  See Good News 
Club  v.  Milford  Central  School,  533  U. S.  98,  120  (2001); 
Lamb’s Chapel, 508 U. S., at 392–397; Rosenberger v. Rec-
tor  and  Visitors  of  Univ.  of  Va.,  515  U. S.  819,  823–824, 
845–846 (1995).

Second,  it  seems  that  Lemon  may  occasionally  shuffle
from its grave for another and more prosaic reason.  By de-
manding a careful examination of the Constitution’s origi-
nal  meaning,  a  proper  application  of  the  Establishment 
Clause  no  doubt  requires  serious  work  and  can  pose  its
challenges.  Lemon’s  abstract  three-part  test  may  seem  a 
simpler and tempting alternative to busy local officials and 
lower courts.  But if this is part of the problem, it isn’t with-
out at least a partial remedy.  For our constitutional history