Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 67

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

27 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

Establishment Clause.  Id., at 599.5  In short, the endorse-
ment inquiry dictated by precedent is a measured, practi-
cal, and administrable one, designed to account for the com-
peting interests present within any given community. 

Despite all of this authority, the Court claims that it “long
ago  abandoned”  both  the  “endorsement  test”  and  this 
Court’s decision in Lemon 403 U. S. 602.  Ante, at 22.  The 
Court chiefly cites the plurality opinion in American Legion 
v. American Humanist Assn., 588 U. S. ___ (2019) to sup-
port this contention.  That plurality opinion, to be sure, crit-
icized Lemon’s effort at establishing a “grand unified theory 
of the Establishment Clause” as poorly suited to the broad 
“array” of diverse establishment claims.  588 U. S., at ___, 
___ (slip op., at 13, 24).  All the Court in American Legion
ultimately  held,  however,  was  that  application  of  the 
Lemon  test  to  “longstanding  monuments,  symbols,  and
practices” was ill-advised for reasons specific to those con-
texts.  588 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 16); see also id., at ___– 
___ (slip op., at 16–21) (discussing at some length why the 
Lemon test was a poor fit for those circumstances).  The only
categorical rejection of Lemon in American Legion appeared
in separate writings.  See 588 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1) 
(KAVANAUGH,  J.,  concurring);  id.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  6) 

—————— 

5 The notion that integration of religious practices into the workplace 
may require compromise and accommodation is not unique to the public-
employer  context  where  Establishment  Clause  concerns  arise.    The 
Court’s precedents on religious discrimination claims similarly recognize 
that the employment context requires balancing employer and employee 
interests, and that religious practice need not always be accommodated.
See Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist., 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., 
at  6)  (ALITO, J.,  statement  respecting  denial  of  certiorari)  (noting  that
“Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion does not 
require  an  employer  to  make  any  accommodation  that  imposes  more 
than a de minimis burden”).  Surely, an employee’s religious practice that 
forces a school district to engage in burdensome measures to stop spec-
tators from rushing onto a field and knocking people down imposes much
more than a de minimis burden.