Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Page Number: 72.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

11 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

founding generation, including George Washington, Patrick 
Henry,  and  John  Marshall,  supported  Virginia’s  Assess-
ment Bill.  See Dreisbach, George Mason’s Pursuit of Reli-
gious Liberty in Revolutionary Virginia, 108 Va. Mag. Hist.
& Biography 5, 31 (2000).  Some who supported this kind of 
government  aid  thought  it  posed  no  threat  to  freedom  of 
conscience; others denied that provisions for aid to religion 
amounted to an “establishment” at all.  See id., at 34–35; D. 
Drakeman,  Church,  State,  and  Original  Intent  224–225
(2010).  Indeed, at least one historian has persuasively ar-
gued that it is next to impossible to attribute to the Found-
ers  any  uniform  understanding  as  to  what  constitutes,  in
the  Constitution’s  phrase,  “an  Establishment  of  religion.” 
Id., at 216–229, 260–262. 

This diversity of opinion made no difference in Locke and 
it makes no difference here.  For our purposes it is enough 
to say that, among those who gave shape to the young Re-
public were people, including Madison and Jefferson, who 
perceived a grave threat to individual liberty and commu-
nal  harmony  in  tax  support  for  the  teaching  of  religious
truths.  These “historic and substantial” concerns have con-
sistently  guided  the  Court’s  application  of  the  Religion 
Clauses since.  Locke, 540 U. S., at 725; see, e.g., Nyquist, 
413 U. S., at 794–798; Walz, 397 U. S., at 695 (Harlan, J., 
concurring);  Schempp,  374  U. S.,  at  307  (Goldberg,  J., 
joined by Harlan, J., concurring).  The Court’s special atten-
tion to these views should come as no surprise, for the risks
the  Founders  saw  have  only  become  more  apparent  over 
time.  In the years since the Civil War, the number of reli-
gions  practiced  in  our  country  has  grown  to  scores.    And 
that has made it more difficult to avoid suspicions of favor-
itism—or  worse—when  government  becomes  entangled
with religion.

Nor can I see how it could make a difference that the Es-
tablishment Clause might permit the State to subsidize re-
ligious education through a program like Montana’s.  The