Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 90

68 

FULTON v. PHILADELPHIA 

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

Stormans, Inc., 794 F. 3d 1064, 1079 (2015).  Compare Stor-
mans, Inc., 579 U. S., at ___–___, and n. 3 (ALITO, J., joined 
by ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial 
of certiorari) (slip op., at 8–9, and n. 3) (questioning Ninth 
Circuit’s finding).

Decisions of the lower courts on the issue of targeting re-
main in disarray.  Compare F. F. v. State, 66 Misc. 3d 467, 
479–482, 114 N. Y. S. 3d 852, 865–867 (2019) (declining to 
consider  individual  legislators’  comments);  Tenafly  Eruv 
Assn., Inc. v. Tenafly, 309 F. 3d 144, 168, n. 30 (CA3 2002) 
(declining to reach issue), with Commack Self-Service Ko-
sher Meats, Inc. v. Hooker, 680 F. 3d 194, 211 (CA2 2012) 
(considering legislative history); St. John’s United Church 
of Christ v. Chicago, 502 F. 3d 616, 633 (CA7 2007) (“[W]e 
must look at . . . the ‘historical background of the decision
under  challenge’ ”  (quoting  Lukumi,  508  U. S.,  at  540)); 
Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, Inc. v. Min De Parle, 
212  F. 3d  1084,  1090  (CA8  2000)  (targeting  can  be  evi-
denced by legislative history). 

3 

The nature and scope of exemptions.  There is confusion 
about the meaning of Smith’s holding on exemptions from
generally applicable laws.  Some decisions apply this spe-
cial rule if multiple secular exemptions are granted.  See, 
e.g.,  Horen  v.  Commonwealth,  23  Va.  App.  735,  743–744, 
479  S. E.  2d  553,  557  (1997);  Rader  v.  Johnston,  924 
F. Supp.  1540,  1551–1553  (Neb.  1996).    Others  conclude 
that even one secular exemption is enough.  See, e.g., Mid-
rash Sephardi, Inc. v. Surfside, 366 F. 3d 1214, 1234–1235 
(CA11 2004); Fraternal Order of Police Newark Lodge No. 
12 v. Newark, 170 F. 3d 359, 365 (CA3 1999).  And still oth-
ers have applied the rule where the law, although allowing 
no exemptions on its face, was widely unenforced in cases 
involving  secular  conduct.    See,  e.g.,  Tenafly  Eruv  Assn., 
309 F. 3d, at 167–168.