Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

1 

BREYER, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 15–577 
_________________ 

TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF COLUMBIA, INC., 

PETITIONER v. CAROL S. COMER, DIRECTOR,
 
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 26, 2017] 

JUSTICE BREYER, concurring in the judgment. 
I  agree  with  much  of  what  the  Court  says  and  with  its
result.  But  I  find  relevant,  and  would  emphasize,  the
particular nature of the “public benefit” here at issue.  Cf. 
ante, at 11 (“Trinity Lutheran . . . asserts a right to partic-
ipate  in  a  government  benefit  program”);  ante,  at  12  (re-
ferring  to  precedent  “striking  down  laws  requiring  indi-
viduals  to  choose  between  their  religious  beliefs  and
receiving a government benefit” (internal quotation marks
omitted));  ante,  at  10  (referring  to  Trinity  Lutheran’s 
“automatic  and  absolute  exclusion  from  the  benefits  of  a 
public program”); ante, at 9–10 (the State’s policy disquali-
fies “otherwise eligible recipients . . . from a public benefit 
solely  because  of  their  religious  character”);  ante,  at  6–7 
(quoting  the  statement  in  Everson  v.  Board  of  Ed.  of 
Ewing,  330  U. S.  1,  16  (1947),  that  the  State  “cannot
exclude”  individuals  “because  of  their  faith”  from  “receiv-
ing the benefits of public welfare legislation”).

The  Court  stated  in  Everson  that  “cutting  off  church
schools  from”  such  “general  government  services  as  ordi-
nary  police  and  fire  protection  . . .  is  obviously  not  the
purpose  of  the  First  Amendment.”  330  U. S.,  at  17–18. 
Here,  the  State  would  cut  Trinity  Lutheran  off  from  par-