Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 28

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

23 

Opinion of the Court 

Perry, 545 U. S. 677, 699 (2005) (BREYER, J., concurring in 
judgment).  In fact, just this Term the Court unanimously 
rejected a city’s attempt to censor religious speech based on 
Lemon and the endorsement test.  See Shurtleff, 596 U. S., 
at ___–___ (slip op., at 1–2); id., at ___ (ALITO, J., concurring 
in judgment) (slip op., at 1); id., at ___, ___–___ (opinion of 
GORSUCH, J.) (slip op., at 1, 4–5).4 

In place of Lemon and the endorsement test, this Court 
has instructed that the Establishment Clause must be in-
terpreted by “ ‘reference to historical practices and under-
standings.’ ”    Town  of  Greece,  572  U. S.,  at  576;  see  also 
American Legion, 588 U. S., at ___ (plurality opinion) (slip 
op.,  at  25). 
“ ‘[T]he  line’ ”  that  courts  and  governments
“must  draw  between  the  permissible  and  the  impermissi-
ble” has to “ ‘accor[d ] with history and faithfully reflec[t ] the 
understanding of the Founding Fathers.’ ”  Town of Greece, 

—————— 

4 Nor was that decision an outlier.  In the last two decades, this Court 
has often criticized or ignored Lemon and its endorsement test variation. 
See,  e.g.,  Espinoza  v.  Montana  Dept.  of  Revenue,  591  U. S.  ___  (2020); 
American  Legion  v.  American  Humanist  Assn.,  588  U. S.  ___  (2019); 
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. ___ (2018); Trinity Lutheran Church of Co-
lumbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U. S. ___ (2017); Town of Greece v. Galloway, 
572 U. S. 565 (2014); Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and 
School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171 (2012); Arizona Christian School Tuition 
Organization v. Winn, 563 U. S. 125 (2011); Hein v. Freedom from Reli-
gion Foundation, Inc., 551 U. S. 587 (2007); id., at 618 (Scalia, J., con-
curring in judgment); Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U. S. 677 (2005); id., at 
689  (BREYER,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment).    A  vast  number  of  Justices 
have criticized those tests over an even longer period.  See Shurtleff v. 
Boston, 596 U. S. ___, at ___–___, and nn. 9–10 (2022) (GORSUCH, J., con-
curring in judgment) (slip op., at 7–8, and nn. 9–10) (collecting opinions 
authored  or  joined  by  ROBERTS  and  Rehnquist,  C. J.,  and  THOMAS, 
BREYER,  ALITO,  KAVANAUGH,  Stevens,  O’Connor,  Scalia,  and  Kennedy, 
JJ.).  The point has not been lost on our lower court colleagues.  See, e.g., 
4  F. 4th  910,  939–941  (2021)  (O’Scannlain,  J.,  respecting  denial  of  re-
hearing en banc); id., at 945 (R. Nelson, J., dissenting from denial of re-
hearing  en  banc);  id.,  at  947,  n. 3  (collecting  lower  court  cases  from 
“around the country” that “have recognized Lemon’s demise”).