Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

1 

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19–123 
_________________ 

SHARONELL FULTON, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

[June 17, 2021] 

JUSTICE  ALITO,  with  whom  JUSTICE  THOMAS  and 

JUSTICE GORSUCH join, concurring in the judgment. 

This case presents an important constitutional question 
that urgently calls out for review: whether this Court’s gov-
erning interpretation of a bedrock constitutional right, the
right to the free exercise of religion, is fundamentally wrong
and should be corrected.
  In Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. 
Smith,  494  U. S.  872  (1990),  the  Court  abruptly  pushed 
aside nearly 40 years of precedent and held that the First 
Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause tolerates any rule that
categorically  prohibits  or  commands  specified  conduct  so
long as it does not target religious practice.  Even if a rule 
serves no important purpose and has a devastating effect 
on religious freedom, the Constitution, according to Smith, 
provides no protection.  This severe holding is ripe for reex-
amination. 

I 

There is no question that Smith’s interpretation can have 
startling consequences.  Here are a few examples.  Suppose
that the Volstead Act, which implemented the Prohibition
Amendment, had not contained an exception for sacramen-
tal  wine.  See  Pub.  L.  66,  §3,  41  Stat.  308–309.    The  Act 
would  have  been  consistent  with  Smith  even  though  it