Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 68

28 

KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DIST. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

(THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment); id., at ___ (slip op., 
at 7) (GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment); see ante, at 23, 
n. 4.6 

The Court now goes much further, overruling Lemon en-
tirely and in all contexts.  It is wrong to do so.  Lemon sum-
marized  “the  cumulative  criteria  developed  by  the  Court 
over many years” of experience “draw[ing] lines” as to when
government engagement with religion violated the Estab-
lishment Clause.  403 U. S., at 612.  Lemon properly con-
cluded  that  precedent  generally  directed  consideration  of 
whether  the  government  action  had  a  “secular  legislative
purpose,” whether its “principal or primary effect must be
one  that  neither  advances  nor  inhibits  religion,”  and 
whether  in  practice  it  “foster[s]  ‘an  excessive  government
entanglement  with  religion.’ ”    Id.,  at  612–613.  It  is  true 
“that  rigid  application  of  the  Lemon  test  does  not  solve 
every  Establishment  Clause  problem,”  but  that  does  not
mean  that  the  test  has  no  value.  American  Legion,  588 
U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1) (KAGAN, J., concurring in part).
To  put  it  plainly,  the  purposes  and  effects  of  a  govern-
ment action matter in evaluating whether that action vio-
lates  the  Establishment  Clause,  as  numerous  precedents 
beyond  Lemon  instruct  in  the  particular  context  of  public
schools.  See supra, at 14–16, 18.  Neither the critiques of 
Lemon as setting out a dispositive test for all seasons nor 

—————— 

6 The Court also cites Shurtleff v. Boston, 596 U. S. ___ (2022), as evi-
dence  that  the  Lemon  test  has  been  rejected.  See  ante,  at  23.  Again, 
while separate writings in Shurtleff criticized Lemon, the Court did not. 
The opinion of the Court simply applied the longstanding rule that, when
the government does not speak for itself, it cannot exclude speech based
on the speech’s “ ‘religious viewpoint.’ ”  Shurtleff, 596 U. S., at ___ (slip
op., at 12) (quoting Good News Club, 533 U. S., at 112).  The Court fur-
ther infers Lemon’s implicit overruling from recent decisions that do not 
apply its test.  See ante, at 23, n. 4.  As explained above, however, not 
applying a test in a given case is a different matter from overruling it 
entirely and, moreover, the Court has never before questioned the rele-
vance of endorsement in the school-prayer context.