Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 70.0

48 

FULTON v. PHILADELPHIA 

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

to engage in activities, such as jury service and voting, that
required an oath to support the Constitution or otherwise
enlisted their participation in the Nation’s scheme of gov-
ernment.65  It is possible to read the opinion in Willson  as 
embodying something like the Smith rule—or as concluding
that granting the exemption would have opened the flood-
gates and undermined public peace and safety.  See 13 S. 
C. L., at 395 (“who could distinguish . . . between the pious
asseveration of a holy man and that of an accomplished vil-
lain”).  But if Willson is read as rejecting religious exemp-
tions,  South  Carolina’s  reconstituted  high  court  reversed
that position in Farnandis.66 

Other cases denying exemptions are even less helpful to 
Smith’s defenders.  Three decisions rejected challenges to
Sunday  closing  laws  by  merchants  who  celebrated  Satur-
day as the Sabbath, but at least two of these were based on 
the court’s conclusion that the asserted religious belief was 
unfounded.  See City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin, 33 
S.  C.  L.  508,  529  (1846)  (“There  is  . . .  no  violation  of  the 
Hebrew’s religion, in requiring him to cease from labor on 
another day than his Sabbath, if he be left free to observe 

—————— 

65 See  McFeeters,  The  Covenanters  in  America  121–129;  id.,  at  122 
(Covenanters “must refuse  upon the grounds of honor, conscience, and 
consistency, to be identified by oath or ballot with such a political sys-
tem”); id., at 129 (Covenanters “decline to take any responsible part in
the administration of civil power”); W. Gibson & A. McLeod, Reformation
Principles  Exhibited,  by  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  in  the
United States of America 138 (1807) (“The juror voluntarily places him-
self upon oath, under the direction of a law which is immoral.  The Re-
formed  Presbytery  declare  this  practice  inconsistent  with  their  Testi-
mony,  and  warn  Church-members  against  serving  on  juries  under  the 
direction of the constituted courts of law”). 

66 See O’Neall, Early History of the Judiciary of South Carolina, p. xi, 
in  1  Biographical  Sketches  of  the  Bench  and  Bar  of  South  Carolina 
(1859);  Walsh  41–42  (explaining  that  South  Carolina  “dismantled”  the 
“five-member constitutional court” that decided Willson and replaced it
with a new high court—the South Carolina Court of Appeals—which con-
curred in the opinion in Farnandis).