Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 43.0

2 

AMERICAN LEGION v. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSN. 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

Clause  cases  over  the  last  48  years  would  have  been  de-
cided differently, as I will explain. 
  The  opinion  identifies five  relevant  categories of  Estab-
lishment  Clause  cases:  (1)  religious  symbols  on  govern-
ment property and religious speech at government events; 
(2) religious  accommodations  and exemptions from  gener-
ally  applicable  laws;  (3)  government  benefits  and  tax 
exemptions  for  religious  organizations;  (4)  religious  ex-
pression  in  public  schools;  and  (5)  regulation  of  private 
religious speech in public forums.  See ante, at 15, n. 16. 
  The Lemon test does not explain the Court’s decisions in 
any of those five categories. 
  In  the  first  category  of  cases,  the  Court  has  relied  on 
history and tradition and upheld various religious symbols 
on  government  property  and  religious  speech  at  govern-
ment events.  See, e.g., Marsh, 463 U. S., at 787–792, 795; 
Van  Orden,  545  U. S.,  at  686–690  (plurality  opinion); 
Town of Greece, 572 U. S., at 575–578.  The Court does so 
again  today.    Lemon  does  not  account  for  the  results  in 
these cases. 
  In  the  second  category  of  cases,  this  Court  has  allowed 
legislative  accommodations  for  religious  activity  and 
upheld  legislatively  granted  religious  exemptions  from 
generally applicable laws.  See, e.g., Corporation of Presid-
ing Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 
v.  Amos,  483  U. S.  327  (1987);  Cutter  v.  Wilkinson,  544 
U. S. 709 (2005).  But accommodations and exemptions “by 
definition”  have  the  effect  of  advancing  or  endorsing  reli-
gion to some extent.  Amos, 483 U. S., at 347 (O’Connor, J., 
concurring in judgment) (quotation altered).  Lemon, fairly 
applied, does not justify those decisions. 
  In  the  third  category  of  cases,  the  Court  likewise  has 
upheld government benefits and tax exemptions that go to 
religious  organizations,  even  though  those  policies  have 
the  effect  of  advancing  or  endorsing  religion.    See,  e.g., 
Walz  v.  Tax  Comm’n  of  City  of  New  York,  397  U. S.  664