Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 106

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

7 

GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

To be sure, the majority again claims otherwise—repre-
senting that it merely adopts the arguments of CSS and the
United States.  See ante, at 10.  But here, too, the majority’s
representation  raises  rather  than  resolves  questions.    In-
stead of pursuing anything like the majority’s contract ar-
guments,  CSS  and  the  United  States  suggest  that  §3.21
“alone  triggers  strict  scrutiny,”  Reply  Brief  5  (emphasis 
added), because that provision authorizes the City “to grant 
formal  exemptions  from  its  policy”  of  nondiscrimination, 
Brief  for  United  States  as  Amicus  Curiae  26  (emphasis
added).  On  this  theory,  it’s  irrelevant  whether  §3.21  or
§15.1 reserve discretion to grant exemptions at all stages of 
the process or at only one stage.  Instead, the City’s power 
to grant exemptions from its nondiscrimination policy any-
where  “undercuts  its  asserted  interests”  and  thus  “trig-
ger[s]  strict  scrutiny”  for  applying  the  policy  everywhere. 
Id., at 21.  Exceptions for one means strict scrutiny for all. 
See, e.g., Tandon v. Newsom, ante, at 1–2 (per curiam).  All 
of which leaves us to wonder: Is the majority just stretching
to claim some cover for its novel arguments?  Or does it ac-
tually mean to adopt the theory it professes to adopt?  

* 
Given all the maneuvering, it’s hard not to wonder if the
majority is so anxious to say nothing about Smith’s fate that 
it is willing to say pretty much anything about municipal 
law and the parties’ briefs.  One way or another, the major-
ity seems determined to declare there is no “need” or “rea-
son” to revisit Smith today.  Ante, at 5 (majority opinion); 
ante, at 2 (BARRETT, J., concurring). 

But  tell  that  to  CSS.    Its  litigation  has  already  lasted 
years—and  today’s  (ir)resolution  promises  more  of  the 
same.  Had we followed the path JUSTICE ALITO outlines— 
holding  that  the  City’s  rules  cannot  avoid  strict  scrutiny
even if they qualify as neutral and generally applicable—
this case would end today.  Instead, the majority’s course