Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 41

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–1088 
_________________ 

DAVID CARSON, AS PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND OF O. C., 
ET AL., PETITIONERS v. A. PENDER MAKIN 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT 

[June 21, 2022] 

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, dissenting. 
This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation 
between church and state that the Framers fought to build.
JUSTICE BREYER explains why the Court’s analysis falters
on its own terms, and I join all but Part I–B of his dissent. 
I write separately to add three points. 

First, this Court should not have started down this path
five years ago.  See Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, 
Inc.  v.  Comer,  582  U. S.  ___  (2017).    Before  Trinity  Lu-
theran, it was well established that “both the United States 
and state constitutions embody distinct views” on “the sub-
ject  of  religion”—“in  favor  of  free  exercise,  but  opposed  to 
establishment”—“that find no counterpart” with respect to 
other constitutional rights.  Locke v. Davey, 540 U. S. 712, 
721 (2004).  Because of this tension, the Court recognized 
“ ‘room for play in the joints’ between” the Religion Clauses,
with  “some  state  actions  permitted  by  the  Establishment
Clause but not required by the Free Exercise Clause.”  Id., 
at  718–719  (quoting  Walz  v.  Tax  Comm’n  of  City  of  New 
York, 397 U. S. 664, 669 (1970)); see ante, at 4 (BREYER, J., 
dissenting).  Using  this  flexibility,  and  consistent  with  a 
rich historical tradition, see Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., at 
___–___  (SOTOMAYOR,  J.,  dissenting)  (slip  op.,  at  11–16),
States and  the Federal Government could decline to fund