Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 109

10 

FULTON v. PHILADELPHIA 

GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

ten  Justices—including  six  sitting  Justices—have  ques-
tioned  its  fidelity  to  the  Constitution.  See  ante,  at  9–10 
(ALITO, J., concurring in judgment); ante, at 1 (BARRETT, J., 
concurring).    The  Court  granted  certiorari  in  this  case  to
resolve its fate.  The parties and amici responded with over
80 thoughtful briefs addressing every angle of the problem. 
JUSTICE  ALITO  has  offered  a  comprehensive  opinion  ex-
plaining why Smith should be overruled.  And not a single 
Justice has lifted a pen to defend the decision.  So what are 
we waiting for? 

We hardly need to “wrestle” today with every conceivable 
question  that  might  follow  from  recognizing  Smith  was 
wrong.  See ante, at 2 (BARRETT, J., concurring).  To be sure, 
any time this Court turns from misguided precedent back 
toward  the  Constitution’s  original  public  meaning,  chal-
lenging questions may arise across a large field of cases and 
controversies.  But that’s no excuse for refusing to apply the
original  public  meaning  in  the  dispute  actually  before  us. 
Rather than adhere to Smith until we settle on some “grand
unified  theory”  of  the  Free  Exercise  Clause  for  all  future
cases until the end of time, see American Legion v. Ameri-
can  Humanist  Assn.,  588  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2019)  (plurality 
opinion) (slip op., at 24), the Court should overrule it now, 
set us back on the correct course, and address each case as 
it comes. 

What possible benefit does the majority see in its studi-
ous  indecision  about  Smith  when  the  costs  are  so  many? 
The particular appeal before us arises at the intersection of
public accommodations laws and the First Amendment; it
involves  same-sex  couples  and  the  Catholic Church.    Per-
haps our colleagues believe today’s circuitous path will at 
least steer the Court around the controversial subject mat-
ter and avoid “picking a side.”  But refusing to give CSS the
benefit of what we know to be the correct interpretation of
the Constitution is picking a side.  Smith committed a con-
stitutional error.  Only we can fix it.  Dodging the question