Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 38

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

 GORSUCH, J., concurring
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

Cases, 2019 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 91 (2019) (Symbol Cases). 
After  Lemon,  cases  challenging  public  displays  under  the 
Establishment Clause came fast and furious.  And just like
the test itself, the results proved a garble.  May a State or 
local government display a Christmas nativity scene?  Some 
courts said yes, others no.1  How about a menorah?  Again,
the answers ran both ways.2  What about a city seal that 
features a cross?  Good luck.3 

If anything, the confusion grew with time.  In the years 
following Lemon, this Court modified its “effects” test by re-
quiring lower courts to ask whether a “reasonable observer” 
would consider the government’s challenged action to be an
“endorsement” of religion.  See, e.g., County of Allegheny v. 
American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chap-
ter, 492 U. S. 573, 593 (1989); id., at 630 (O’Connor, J., con-
curring  in  part  and  concurring  in  judgment).   But  rather 
than  fix  Lemon’s  problems,  this  new  gloss  compounded 
them.  Some argued that any reasonable observer worthy of
the name would consider all the relevant facts and law, just
as  a  judge  or  jury  must.  See  Capitol  Square  Review  and 
Advisory  Bd.  v.  Pinette,  515  U. S.  753,  778–781  (1995) 
(O’Connor, J., concurring in part).  Others suggested that a 
reasonable observer could make mistakes about the law or 
fail to consider all the facts.  See, e.g., American Atheists, 
Inc.  v.  Duncan,  616  F. 3d  1145,  1160–1161  (CA10  2010). 
And that suggestion only raised even more questions.  Just 

—————— 

1 Compare Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 671–672 (1984) (yes), and 
American Civil Liberties Union of Ky. v. Wilkinson, 895 F. 2d 1098, 1099– 
1100, 1104 (CA6 1990) (yes), with County of Allegheny v. American Civil 
Liberties  Union,  Greater  Pittsburgh  Chapter,  492  U. S.  573,  578–579 
(1989) (no), and Smith v. County of Albemarle, 895 F. 2d 953, 955, 958– 
960 (CA4 1990) (no). 

2 Compare Allegheny, 492 U. S., at 578–581 (yes), and Skoros v. New 
York, 437 F. 3d 1, 3–4 (CA2 2006) (yes), with Kaplan v. Burlington, 891 
F. 2d 1024, 1025–1026, 1030–1031 (CA2 1989) (no). 

3 Compare Murray v. Austin, 947 F. 2d 147, 149 (CA5 1991) (yes), with 

Harris v. Zion, 927 F. 2d 1401, 1402 (CA7 1991) (no).