Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 92

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

11 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

* 

* 

* 
Today’s ruling is perverse.  Without any need or power to
do  so,  the Court  appears  to  require  a  State  to  reinstate a 
tax-credit program that the Constitution did not demand in 
the first place.  We once recognized that “[w]hile the Free
Exercise Clause clearly prohibits the use of state action to 
deny  the  rights  of  free  exercise  to  anyone,  it  has  never
meant that a majority could use the machinery of the State 
to practice its beliefs.”  Schempp, 374 U. S., at 226 (empha-
sis deleted).  Today’s Court, by contrast, rejects the Religion
Clauses’  balanced  values  in  favor  of  a  new  theory  of  free
exercise,  and  it  does  so  only  by  setting  aside  well-estab-
lished judicial constraints.
I respectfully dissent.