Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

11 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

joining the Court, Justice Souter called for Smith to be reex-
amined.  Church  of  Lukumi  Babalu  Aye,  Inc.  v.  Hialeah, 
508  U. S.  520,  559  (1993)  (opinion  concurring  in  part  and 
concurring in judgment).  So have five sitting Justices.  Ken-
nedy  v.  Bremerton  School  Dist.,  586  U. S.  ___,  ___–___ 
(2019)  (ALITO,  J.,  joined  by  THOMAS,  GORSUCH,  and 
KAVANAUGH,  JJ.,  concurring  in  denial  of  certiorari)  (slip
op.,  at  5–6);  City  of  Boerne  v.  Flores,  521  U. S.  507,  566 
(1997) (BREYER, J., dissenting).  So have some of the coun-
try’s  most  distinguished  scholars  of  the  Religion  Clauses. 
See,  e.g.,  McConnell,  Free  Exercise  Revisionism  and  the 
Smith Decision, 57 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1109 (1990) (McConnell, 
Free Exercise Revisionism); Laycock, The Supreme Court’s 
Assault on Free Exercise, and the Amicus Brief That Was 
Never Filed, 8 J. L. & Religion 99 (1990).  On two separate 
occasions, Congress, with virtual unanimity, expressed the
view that Smith’s interpretation is contrary to our society’s
deep-rooted  commitment  to  religious  liberty.   In  enacting
the  Religious  Freedom  Restoration  Act  of  1993,  107  Stat.
1488 (codified at 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq.), and the Reli-
gious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000,
114 Stat. 803 (codified at 42 U. S. C. §2000cc et seq.), Con-
gress tried to restore the constitutional rule in place before 
Smith was handed down.  Those laws, however, do not ap-
ply to most state action, and they leave huge gaps.

It is high time for us to take a fresh look at what the Free

Exercise Clause demands. 

II 
A 
To fully appreciate what the Court did in Smith, it is nec-
essary to recall the substantial body of precedent that it dis-
placed.  Our seminal decision on the question of religious
exemptions from generally applicable laws was Sherbert v. 
Verner,  374  U. S.  398  (1963),  which  had  been  in  place  for