Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 35

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

13 

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

claims by unscrupulous claimants feigning religious objec-
tions,”  but  Justice  Brennan’s  opinion  found  this  justifica-
tion insufficient because the State failed to show that “no 
alternative forms of regulation would combat such abuses
without infringing First Amendment rights.”  Id., at 407. 

The test distilled from Sherbert—that a law that imposes 
a substantial burden on the exercise of religion must be nar-
rowly tailored to serve a compelling interest—was the gov-
erning rule for the next 37 years.  Applying that test, the 
Court  sometimes  vindicated  free-exercise  claims.  In  Wis-
consin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 234 (1972), for example, the
Court held that a state law requiring all students to remain
in school until the age of 16 violated the free-exercise rights 
of  Amish  parents  whose  religion  required  that  children
leave  school  after  the  eighth  grade.    The  Court  acknowl-
edged the State’s “admittedly strong interest in compulsory
education” but concluded that the State had failed to “show 
with  . . .  particularity  how  [that  interest]  would  be  ad-
versely  affected  by  granting  an  exemption  to  the  Amish.” 
Id., at 236.  And in holding that the Amish were entitled to 
a special exemption, the Court expressly rejected the inter-
pretation  of  the  Free  Exercise  Clause  that  was  later  em-
braced in Smith.  Indeed, the Yoder Court stated this point
again and again: “[T]here are areas of conduct protected by
the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and thus 
beyond the power of the State to control, even under regu-
lations of general applicability”; “[a] regulation neutral on 
its face may, in its application, nonetheless offend the con-
stitutional requirement for governmental neutrality if it un-
duly  burdens  the  free  exercise  of  religion”;  insisting  that 
Amish  children  abide  by  the  compulsory  attendance  re-
quirement  was  unconstitutional  even  though  it  “applie[d] 
uniformly  to  all  citizens  of  the  State  and  d[id]  not,  on  its 
face, discriminate against religions or a particular religion,
[and was]  motivated by legitimate secular concerns.”  Id., 
at 220 (emphasis added).