Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 87.0

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

65 

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

Rehnquist took the position that the “object” of a rule must 
be determined by its terms and that evidence of the rule-
makers’ motivation should not be considered.  508 U. S., at 
557–559.  This interpretation had the disadvantage of  al-
lowing skillful rulemakers to target religious exercise by de-
vising  a  facially  neutral  rule  that  applies  to  both  the  tar-
geted religious conduct and a slice of secular conduct that
can be burdened without eliciting unacceptable opposition 
from those whose interests are affected. 

The alternative to this approach takes courts into the dif-
ficult business of ascertaining the subjective motivations of 
rulemakers.  In  Lukumi,  Justices  Kennedy  and  Stevens 
took that path and relied on numerous statements by coun-
cil members showing that their object was to ban the prac-
tice of Santeria within the city’s borders.  Id., at 540–542. 
Thus, Lukumi left the meaning of a rule’s “object” up in the 
air. 

When  the  issue  returned  in  Masterpiece  Cakeshop,  the 
question was only partially resolved.  Holding that the Col-
orado  Civil  Rights  Commission  violated  the  free-exercise 
rights of a baker who refused for religious reasons to create
a cake for a same-sex wedding, the Court pointed to dispar-
aging  statements  made  by  commission  members,  and  the
Court noted that these comments, “by an adjudicatory body 
deciding a particular case,” “were made in a very different 
context”  from  the  remarks  by  the  council  members  in 
Lukumi.  Masterpiece Cakeshop, 584 U. S., at ___ (slip op., 
at 14).  That is as far as this Court’s decisions have gone on
the question of targeting, and thus many important ques-
tions remain open.

The present case highlights two—specifically, which offi-
cials’ motivations are relevant and what degree of dispar-
agement must be shown to establish unconstitutional tar-
geting. 
In  Masterpiece  Cakeshop,  the  commissioners’ 
statements—comparing  the  baker’s  actions  to  the  Holo-
caust and slavery and suggesting that his beliefs were just