Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 65

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

25 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

at issue here.  Supra, at 16–20. 

B 
For decades, the Court has recognized that, in determin-
ing  whether  a  school  has  violated  the  Establishment 
Clause, “one of the relevant questions is whether an objec-
tive observer, acquainted with the text, legislative history,
and implementation of the [practice], would perceive it as a 
state endorsement of prayer in public schools.”  Santa Fe, 
530 U. S., at 308 (internal quotation marks omitted).  The 
Court now says for the first time that endorsement simply
does not matter, and completely repudiates the test estab-
lished  in  Lemon,  403  U. S.  602.    Ante,  at  22–24.    Both  of 
these moves are erroneous and, despite the Court’s assur-
ances, novel. 

Start with endorsement.  The Court reserves particular
criticism for the longstanding understanding that govern-
ment  action  that  appears  to  endorse  religion  violates  the
Establishment Clause, which it describes as an “offshoot” of 
Lemon and paints as a “ ‘modified heckler’s veto, in which 
. . . religious activity can be proscribed’ ” based on “ ‘ “percep-
tions” ’ ” or “ ‘ “discomfort.” ’ ”  Ante, at 21–22 (quoting Good 
News  Club  v.  Milford  Central  School,  533  U. S.  98,  119 
(2001)).  This is a strawman.  Precedent long has recognized 
that  endorsement  concerns  under  the  Establishment 
Clause, properly understood, bear no relation to a “ ‘heck-
ler’s veto.’ ”  Ante, as 22.  Good News Club itself explained 
the  difference  between  the  two:  The  endorsement  inquiry 
considers the perspective not of just any hypothetical or un-
informed  observer  experiencing  subjective  discomfort,  but
of “ ‘the reasonable observer’ ” who is “ ‘aware of the history
and context of the community and forum in which the reli-
gious [speech takes place].’ ”  533 U. S., at 119.  That is be-
cause  “ ‘the  endorsement  inquiry  is  not  about  the  percep-
tions  of  particular 
isolated 
nonadherents from . . . discomfort’ ” but concern “ ‘with the 

individuals  or  saving