Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 44.0

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

3 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

(1970);  Mueller  v.  Allen,  463  U. S.  388  (1983);  Mitchell  v. 
Helms, 530 U. S. 793 (2000) (plurality opinion); Zelman v. 
Simmons-Harris,  536  U. S.  639  (2002);  Trinity  Lutheran 
Church  of  Columbia,  Inc.  v.  Comer,  582  U. S.  ___  (2017).  
Those outcomes are not easily reconciled with Lemon. 
  In the fourth category of cases, the Court has proscribed 
government-sponsored  prayer  in  public  schools.    The 
Court has done so not because of Lemon, but because the 
Court  concluded  that  government-sponsored  prayer  in 
public  schools  posed  a  risk  of  coercion  of  students.    The 
Court’s  most  prominent  modern  case  on  that  subject,  
Lee  v.  Weisman,  505  U. S.  577  (1992),  did  not  rely  on 
Lemon.  In short, Lemon was not necessary to the Court’s 
decisions  holding  government-sponsored  school  prayers 
unconstitutional. 
  In  the  fifth  category,  the  Court  has  allowed  private 
religious  speech  in  public  forums  on  an  equal  basis  with 
secular  speech.    See,  e.g.,  Lamb’s  Chapel  v.  Center 
Moriches  Union  Free  School  Dist.,  508  U. S.  384  (1993); 
Capitol  Square  Review  and  Advisory  Bd.  v.  Pinette,  515 
U. S.  753  (1995);  Rosenberger  v.  Rector  and  Visitors  of 
Univ.  of  Va.,  515  U. S.  819  (1995);  Good  News  Club  v. 
Milford Central School, 533 U. S. 98 (2001).  That practice 
does  not  violate the  Establishment  Clause, the  Court  has 
ruled.  Lemon does not explain those cases. 
  Today,  the  Court  declines  to  apply  Lemon  in  a  case  in 
the  religious  symbols  and  religious  speech  category,  just 
as the Court declined to apply Lemon in Town of Greece v. 
Galloway,  Van  Orden  v.  Perry,  and  Marsh  v.  Chambers.  
The  Court’s  decision  in  this  case  again  makes  clear  that 
the  Lemon  test  does  not  apply  to  Establishment  Clause 
cases in that category.  And the Court’s decisions over the 
span  of  several  decades  demonstrate  that  the  Lemon  test 
is  not  good  law  and  does  not  apply  to  Establishment 
Clause cases in any of the five categories. 
  On the contrary, each category of Establishment Clause