Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 62.0

40 

FULTON v. PHILADELPHIA 

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

C 

That the free-exercise right included the right to certain 
religious exemptions is strongly supported by the practice
of  the  Colonies  and  States.  When  there  were  important
clashes between generally applicable laws and the religious 
practices  of  particular  groups,  colonial  and  state  legisla-
tures  were  willing  to  grant  exemptions—even  when  the 
generally applicable laws served critical state interests. 

Oath  exemptions  are  illustrative.  Oath  requirements
were  considered  “indispensable”  to  civil  society  because 
they were thought to ensure that individuals gave truthful
testimony and fulfilled commitments.  McConnell, Origins
1467.  Quakers and members of some other religious groups
refused to take oaths, ibid., and therefore a categorical oath
requirement would have resulted in the complete exclusion
of these Americans from important civic activities, such as 
testifying in court and voting, see ibid. 

Tellingly, that is not what happened.  In the 1600s, Car-
olina allowed Quakers to enter a pledge rather than swear-
ing an oath.  Ibid.  In 1691, New York permitted Quakers 
to give testimony after giving an affirmation.  Ibid.  Massa-
chusetts did the same in 1743.  Id., at 1467–1468.  In 1734, 
New York also allowed Quakers to qualify to vote by mak-
ing an affirmation, and in 1740, Georgia granted an exemp-
tion to Jews, allowing them to omit the phrase “ ‘on the faith
of a Christian’ ” from the State’s naturalization oath.  Id., at 
1467.  By 1789, almost all States had passed oath exemp-
tions.  Id., at 1468. 

Some early State Constitutions and declarations of rights
formally  provided  oath  exemptions  for  religious  objectors.
For  instance,  the  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights  of  1776 
declared that Quakers, Mennonites, and members of some 
other  religious  groups  “ought  to  be  allowed  to  make  their 
solemn affirmation” instead of an oath.  §36, in Cogan 18. 
Similarly, the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 permit-