Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 62

Cite as:  588 U. S. ____ (2019) 

7 

GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

ment Clause forbids anything a reasonable observer would 
view as an endorsement of religion, then such an observer 
must be able to sue.  Moore v. Bryant, 853 F. 3d 245, 250 
(CA5  2017).    Here  alone,  lower  courts  concluded,  though 
never  with  this  Court’s  approval,  an  observer’s  offense 
must  “suffice  to  make  an  Establishment  Clause  claim 
justiciable.”  Suhre v. Haywood Cty., 131 F. 3d 1083, 1086 
(CA4 1997). 
  As today’s plurality rightly indicates in Part II–A, how-
ever,  Lemon  was  a  misadventure.    It  sought  a  “grand 
unified  theory”  of  the  Establishment  Clause  but  left  us 
only  a  mess.    See  ante,  at  24  (plurality  opinion).    How 
much “purpose” to promote religion is too much (are Sun-
day  closing  laws  that  bear  multiple  purposes,  religious 
and  secular,  problematic)?    How  much  “effect”  of  advanc-
ing  religion  is  tolerable  (are  even  incidental  effects  disal-
lowed)?    What  does  the  “entanglement”  test  add  to  these 
inquiries?    Even  beyond  all  that,  how  “reasonable”  must 
our “reasonable observer” be, and what exactly qualifies as 
impermissible  “endorsement”  of  religion  in  a  country 
where “In God We Trust” appears on the coinage, the eye 
of  God  appears  in  its  Great  Seal,  and  we  celebrate 
Thanksgiving as a national holiday (“to Whom are thanks 
being given”)?  Harris v. Zion, 927 F. 2d 1401, 1423 (CA7 
1991) (Easterbrook, J., dissenting).  Nearly half a century 
after  Lemon  and,  the  truth  is,  no  one  has  any  idea  about 
the  answers  to  these  questions.    As  the  plurality  docu-
ments,  our  “doctrine  [is]  in  such  chaos”  that  lower  courts 
have  been  “free  to  reach  almost  any  result  in  almost  any 
case.”    McConnell,  Religious  Participation  in  Public  Pro-
grams:  Religious  Freedom  at  a  Crossroads,  59  U.  Chi. 
L. Rev.  115,  119  (1992).    Scores  of  judges  have  pleaded 
with  us to  retire  Lemon,  scholars  of  all  stripes  have  criti-
cized  the  doctrine,  and  a  majority  of  this  Court  has  long 
done the same.  Ante, at 14–15 (plurality opinion).  Today, 
not  a  single  Member  of  the  Court  even  tries  to  defend