Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 50.0

2 

AMERICAN LEGION  v. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSN. 

THOMAS,  J., concurring  in judgment 
THOMAS,  J., concurring  in judgment 

Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U. S. 1, 49–51 (2004) 
(opinion concurring in judgment); Van Orden v. Perry, 545 
U. S. 677, 692–693 (2005) (concurring opinion); Zelman v. 
Simmons-Harris,  536  U. S.  639,  677–680  (2002)  (same).  
In  Everson  v.  Board  of  Ed.  of  Ewing,  330  U. S.  1,  15 
(1947), the Court “casually” incorporated the Clause with 
a declaration that because the Free Exercise Clause had 
been  incorporated,  “ ‘[t]here  is  every  reason  to  give  the 
same application and broad interpretation to the “estab-
lishment of religion” clause.’ ”  Town of Greece, 572 U. S., 
at 607, n. 1 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).  The Court apparently 
did  not  consider  that  an  incorporated  Establishment 
Clause would prohibit exactly what the text of the Clause 
seeks to protect: state establishments of religion.  See id., 
at 605–606. 
  The Court’s “inattention” to the significant question of 
incorporation “might be explained, although not excused, 
by  the  rise  of  popular  conceptions  about  ‘separation  of 
church  and  state’  as an ‘American’ constitutional right.”  
Id., at 608, n. 1; see P. Hamburger, Separation of Church 
and State 454–463 (2002); see also id., at 391–454 (tracing 
the role of nativist sentiment in the rise of “the modern 
myth of separation” as an American ideal).  But an ahis-
torical generalization is no substitute for careful constitu-
tional  analysis.    We  should  consider  whether  any 
longstanding  right  of  citizenship restrains the States in 
the  establishment  context.    See  generally  McDonald  v. 
Chicago,  561  U. S.  742,  805–858,  and  n. 20  (2010) 
(THOMAS,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and  concurring  in 
judgment). 
  Further confounding the incorporation question is the 
fact that the First Amendment by its terms applies only to 
“law[s]” enacted by “Congress.”  Obviously, a memorial is 
not a law.  And respondents have not identified any speci- 
fic law they challenge as unconstitutional, either on its face 
or  as applied.  Thus, respondents could prevail on their