Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a145_gfbi.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2021) 

7 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

A 

Under the Free Exercise Clause, government “cannot act 
in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the 
illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.”  Masterpiece, 
584 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 17–18); see also Smith, 494 
U. S., at 877–878.  As a result, we have said that govern-
ment  actions  burdening  religious  practice  should  be  “set 
aside” if there is even “slight suspicion” that those actions 
“stem from animosity to religion or distrust of its practices.” 
Masterpiece, 584 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 17–18). 

New York’s mandate is such an action.  The State began
with  a  plan  to  exempt religious objectors  from  its  vaccine 
mandate and only later changed course.  Its regulatory im-
pact  statement  offered  no  explanation  for  the  about-face.
At the same time, a new Governor whose assumption of of-
fice coincided with the change in policy admitted that the 
revised mandate “left off ” a religious exemption “intention-
ally.”  The Governor offered an extraordinary explanation
for the change too.  She said that “God wants” people to be 
vaccinated—and that those who disagree are not listening 
to  “organized  religion”  or  “everybody  from  the  Pope  on 
down.”  Then  the  new  Governor  went  on  to  announce 
changes  to  the  State’s  unemployment  scheme  designed  to 
single out for special disfavor healthcare workers who failed 
to comply with the revised mandate.  This record gives rise
to more than a “slight suspicion” that New York acted out 
of “animosity [toward] or distrust of ” unorthodox religious 
beliefs and practices.  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17).  This rec-
ord practically exudes suspicion of those who hold unpopu-
lar religious beliefs.  That alone is sufficient to render the 
mandate unconstitutional as applied to these applicants. 

B 
New York’s regulation fares no better if the question is 

the law’s neutrality and general applicability.

Begin  with  neutrality.    Even  absent  proof  of  animus,  a