Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 86

64 

FULTON v. PHILADELPHIA 

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

i.e., a “ ‘colorable showing of factual innocence’ ”).78 

It is rare to encounter a holding of this Court that has so 
thoroughly stymied or elicited such open derision from the 
Courts of Appeals. 

2 

Rules that “target” religion.  Post-Smith cases have also 
struggled  with  the  task  of  determining  whether  a  pur-
portedly neutral rule “targets” religious exercise or has the
restriction of religious exercise as its “object.”  Lukumi, 508 
U. S., at 534; Smith, 494 U. S., at 878.  A threshold question
is whether “targeting” calls for an objective or subjective in-
quiry.  Must  “targeting”  be  assessed  based  solely  on  the
terms of the relevant rule or rules?  Or can evidence of the 
rulemakers’ motivation be taken into account?  If subjective
motivations may be considered, does it matter whether the 
challenged  state  action  is  an  adjudication,  the  promulga-
tion of a rule, or the enactment of legislation?  Should courts 
consider the motivations of only the officials who took the 
challenged action, or may they also take into account com-
ments  by  superiors  and  others  in  a  position  of  influence? 
And what degree of hostility to religion or a religious group 
is required to prove “targeting”?

The genesis of this problem was Smith’s holding that  a 
rule is not neutral “if prohibiting the exercise of religion” is
its “object.”  494 U. S., at 878.  Smith did not elaborate on 
what  that  meant,  and  later  in  Lukumi,  which  concerned 
city ordinances that burdened the practice of Santeria, 508
U. S., at 525–528, Justices in the Smith majority adopted 
different interpretations.  Justice Scalia and Chief Justice 

—————— 

78 Recently, some lower courts have proceeded under yet another ap-
proach,  which  analyzes  whether  the  claims  presented  are  sufficiently
similar to those raised in the cases that this Court purported to distin-
guish in Smith.  See Henderson v. McMurray, 987 F. 3d 997, 1006–1007 
(CA11 2021); see also Illinois Bible Colleges Assn. v. Anderson, 870 F. 3d 
631, 641 (CA7 2017).