Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 51

Cite as:  588 U. S. ____ (2019) 

3 

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

establishment  claim  only  if the prohibition embodied in 
the Establishment Clause was understood to be an indi-
vidual right of citizenship that applied to more than just 
“law[s]” “ma[de]” by “Congress.” 1 

II 
  Even  if  the  Clause  applied  to  state  and  local govern-
ments in some fashion, “[t]he mere presence of the monu-
ment along [respondents’] path involves no coercion and 
thus  does  not  violate  the  Establishment  Clause.”    Van 
Orden, 545 U. S., at 694 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).  The sine 
qua  non  of  an  establishment  of  religion is “ ‘actual legal 
coercion.’ ”    Id.,  at  693.    At the founding, “[t]he coercion 
that  was  a hallmark of historical establishments of reli-
gion was coercion of religious orthodoxy and of financial 
support  by  force  of  law  and  threat  of  penalty.”    Lee  v. 
Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 640 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting) 
(emphasis deleted).  “In a typical case, attendance at the 
established church was mandatory, and taxes were levied 
to  generate church revenue.  Dissenting ministers were 
barred  from  preaching,  and  political  participation  was 
limited  to members of the established church.”  Town of 
Greece,  supra,  at  608  (opinion  of  THOMAS,  J.)  (citation 
omitted).  In an action claiming an unconstitutional estab-
lishment of religion, the plaintiff must demonstrate that 
he  was  actually  coerced  by  government  conduct  that 
shares the characteristics of an establishment as under-
stood at the founding.2 
—————— 

1 In  my  view,  the  original  meaning  of  the  phrase  “Congress  shall 
make no law” is a question worth exploring.  Compare G. Lawson & G. 
Seidman, The Constitution of Empire 42 (2004) (arguing that the First 
Amendment  “applies  only  to  Congress”),  with  Shrum  v.  Coweta,  449 
F. 3d 1132, 1140–1143 (CA10 2006) (McConnell, J.) (arguing that it is 
not so limited).   

2 Of course, cases involving state or local action are not strictly speak-
ing  Establishment  Clause  cases,  but  instead  Fourteenth  Amendment 
cases  about  a  privilege  or  immunity  of  citizenship.    It  is  conceivable