Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

2 

CARSON v. MAKIN 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

thereof.”  Each  Clause,  linguistically  speaking,  is  “cast  in
absolute terms.”  Walz v. Tax Comm’n of City of New York, 
397 U. S. 664, 668 (1970).  The first Clause, the Establish-
ment Clause, seems to bar all government “sponsorship, fi-
nancial support, [or] active involvement . . . in religious ac-
tivity,” while the second Clause, the Free Exercise Clause,
seems to bar all “governmental restraint on religious prac-
tice.”  Id., at 668, 670.  The apparently absolutist nature of
these  two  prohibitions  means  that  either  Clause,  “if  ex-
panded to a logical extreme, would tend to clash with the
other.”  Id., at 668–669.  Because of this, we have said, the 
two  Clauses  “are  frequently  in  tension,”    Locke  v.  Davey, 
540 U. S. 712, 718 (2004), and “often exert conflicting pres-
sures” on government action, Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 
709, 719 (2005).

On  the  one  hand,  the  Free  Exercise  Clause  “ ‘protect[s]
religious  observers  against  unequal  treatment.’ ”  Trinity 
Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6) (quoting Church 
of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 542 
(1993);  alteration  in  original).  We  have  said  that,  in  the 
education context, this means that States generally cannot
“ba[r] religious schools from public benefits solely because 
of the religious character of the schools.”  Espinoza v. Mon-
tana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 
9); see Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 
9–10).

On the other hand, the Establishment Clause “commands 
a separation of church and state.”  Cutter, 544 U. S., at 719. 
A State cannot act to “aid one religion, aid all religions, or 
prefer one religion over another.”  Everson v. Board of Ed. 
of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1, 15 (1947).  This means that a State 
cannot use “its public school system to aid any or all reli-
gious faiths or sects in the dissemination of their doctrines 
and  ideals.”  Illinois  ex  rel.  McCollum  v.  Board  of  Ed.  of 
School  Dist.  No.  71,  Champaign  Cty.,  333  U. S.  203,  211 
(1948).  Nor may a State “adopt programs or practices in its