Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

1 

GORSUCH, J., concurring in part 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 15–577 
_________________ 

TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF COLUMBIA, INC., 

PETITIONER v. CAROL S. COMER, DIRECTOR,
 
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 26, 2017] 

JUSTICE  GORSUCH,  with  whom  JUSTICE  THOMAS  joins,

concurring in part. 

Missouri’s law bars Trinity Lutheran from participating
in a public benefits program only because it is a church.  I 
agree this violates the First Amendment and I am pleased 
to  join  nearly  all  of  the  Court’s  opinion.    I  offer  only  two
modest qualifications.

First,  the  Court  leaves  open  the  possibility  a  useful
distinction  might  be  drawn  between  laws  that  discrimi-
nate on the basis of religious status and religious use.  See 
ante, at 12.  Respectfully, I harbor doubts about the stabil-
ity  of  such  a  line.    Does  a  religious  man  say  grace  before 
dinner?  Or does a man begin his meal in a religious man-
ner?  Is it a religious group that built the playground?  Or 
did  a  group  build  the  playground  so  it  might  be  used  to 
advance  a  religious  mission?    The  distinction  blurs  in 
much  the  same  way  the  line  between  acts  and  omissions 
can  blur  when  stared  at  too  long,  leaving  us  to  ask  (for 
example)  whether  the  man  who  drowns  by  awaiting  the 
incoming  tide  does  so  by  act  (coming  upon  the  sea)  or
omission (allowing the sea to come upon him).  See Cruzan 
v. Director, Mo. Dept. of Health, 497 U. S. 261, 296 (1990) 
(Scalia,  J.,  dissenting).    Often  enough  the  same  facts  can