Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 73.0

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

51 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

the proposal,67 others opposed it,68 and in the end, after add-
ing the words “in person” at the end of the clause, the House
adopted  it.69   The  Senate,  however,  rejected  the  proposal
(for reasons not provided on the public record), id., at 1116, 
and the House acceded to the deletion. 

Those who claim that this episode supports Smith argue
that the House would not have found it necessary to include
this  proviso  in  the  Second  Amendment  if  it  had  thought 
that the Free Exercise Clause already protected conscien-
tious objectors from conscription, Muñoz, Original Meaning 
1120, but that conclusion is unfounded.  Those who favored 
Madison’s  language  might  have  thought  it  necessary,  not 
because the free-exercise right never required religious ex-
emptions but because they feared that exemption from mil-
itary  service  would  be  held  to  fall  into  the  free-exercise
right’s carveout for conduct that threatens public safety.70 
And of course, it could be argued that the willingness of the
House to constitutionalize this exemption despite its poten-
tial effect on national security shows the depth of the Mem-
bers’ commitment to the concept of religious exemptions. 

As for the Senate’s rejection of the proviso, we have often 
warned against drawing inferences from Congress’s failure 
to adopt a legislative proposal.  See Schneidewind v. ANR 
Pipeline Co., 485 U. S. 293, 306 (1988) (“This Court gener-
ally is reluctant to draw inferences from Congress’ failure 
to  act”);  Brecht  v.  Abrahamson,  507  U. S.  619,  632–633 
(1993)  (collecting  cases).  And  in  this  instance,  there  are 

—————— 

67 Hamburger, Religious Exemption 928, and n. 56 (quoting the state-

ment of Rep. Boudinot). 

68 Id., at 928, and n. 57 (quoting the statement of Rep. Benson). 
69 Muñoz, Original Meaning 1115. 
70 Several State Constitutions contained both Free Exercise Clause an-
alogs and provisions protecting conscientious objectors, and this has been 
cited as evidence that the free-exercise analogs did not confer any right
to exemptions.  See id., at 1118–1119.  This argument is unpersuasive 
for the reasons explained above.