Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 75.0

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

53 

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

fixed  star  in  our  constitutional  constellation,  if  there  is 
one)” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Citizens United 
v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310, 365 (2010) (over-
ruling Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 
652 (1990)); West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 
624, 642 (1943) (overruling Minersville School Dist. v. Go-
bitis, 310 U. S. 586 (1940)).

In assessing whether to overrule a past decision that ap-
pears to be incorrect, we have considered a variety of fac-
tors, and four of those weigh strongly against Smith: its rea-
soning; its consistency with other decisions; the workability 
of the rule that it established; and developments since the 
decision was handed down.  See Janus, 585 U. S., at ___– 
___ (slip op., at 34–35).  No relevant factor, including reli-
ance, weighs in Smith’s favor. 

A 

Smith’s reasoning.  As explained in detail above, Smith is 
a methodological outlier.  It ignored the “normal and ordi-
nary”  meaning  of  the  constitutional  text,  see  Heller,  554 
U. S., at 576, and it made no real effort to explore the un-
derstanding  of  the  free-exercise  right  at  the  time  of  the 
First  Amendment’s  adoption.  And  the  Court  adopted  its
reading of the Free Exercise Clause with no briefing on the
issue from the parties or amici.  Laycock, 8 J. L. & Religion, 
at 101. 

Then there is Smith’s treatment of precedent.  It looked 
for  precedential  support  in  strange  places,  and  the  many
precedents that stood in its way received remarkably rough 
treatment. 

Looking for a case that had endorsed its no-exemptions
view, Smith turned to Gobitis, 310 U. S., at 586, a decision 
that  Justice  Scalia  himself  later acknowledged  was  “erro-
neous,” Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S., at 500–501