Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 108.0

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

9 

GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

the  Supreme  Court,  we  ruled  for  him  on  narrow  grounds
similar to those the majority invokes today.  Because cer-
tain government officials responsible for deciding Mr. Phil-
lips’s  compliance  with  a  local  public  accommodations  law 
uttered statements exhibiting hostility to his religion, the 
Court  held,  those  officials  failed  to  act  “neutrally”  under 
Smith.  See 584 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 16–18).  But 
with Smith still on the books, all that victory assured Mr. 
Phillips  was  a  new  round  of  litigation—with  officials  now 
presumably  more  careful  about  admitting  their  motives. 
See  Associated  Press,  Lakewood  Baker  Jack  Phillips
Sued for Refusing Gender Transition Cake (Mar. 22, 2021),
https : / / denver . cbslocal. com / 2021 / 03 / 22 / jack - phillips -
masterpiece-cakeshop-lakewood-transgender/.  A nine-year
odyssey thus barrels on.  No doubt, too, those  who cannot 
afford  such  endless  litigation  under  Smith’s  regime  have 
been and will continue to be forced to forfeit religious free-
dom that the Constitution protects. 

The costs of today’s indecision fall on lower courts too.  As 
recent  cases  involving  COVID–19  regulations  highlight,
judges  across  the  country  continue  to  struggle  to  under-
stand and apply Smith’s test even thirty years after it was 
announced.  In the last nine months alone, this Court has 
had to intervene at least half a dozen times to clarify how 
Smith works.  See, e.g., Tandon, ante, at p. 1; Roman Cath-
olic  Diocese  of  Brooklyn  v.  Cuomo,  592  U. S.  ___  (2020) 
(per curiam); High Plains Harvest Church v. Polis, 592 U. S 
___ (2020).  To be sure, this Court began to resolve at least 
some  of  the  confusion  surrounding  Smith’s  application  in 
Tandon.  But Tandon treated the symptoms, not the under-
lying ailment.  We owe it to the parties, to religious believ-
ers,  and  to  our  colleagues  on  the  lower  courts  to  cure  the 
problem this Court created. 

It’s not as if we don’t know the right answer.  Smith has 
been criticized since the day it was decided.  No fewer than