Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 28

6 

CARSON v. MAKIN 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Re-
ligion, has produced amongst its several sects.”  Id., at 68– 
69 (appendix to dissenting opinion of Rutledge, J.).  To in-
terpret the Clauses with these concerns in mind may help
to further their original purpose of avoiding religious-based
division. 

I  have  also  previously  explained  why  I  believe  that  a
“rigid,  bright-line”  approach  to  the  Religion  Clauses—an 
approach  without  any  leeway  or  “play  in  the  joints”—will
too  often  work  against  the  Clauses’  underlying  purposes. 
Espinoza, 591 U. S., at ___ (dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 
18); see also Van Orden, 545 U. S., at 669–700 (opinion con-
curring  in  judgment). 
“[G]overnment  benefits  come  in 
many shapes and sizes.”  Espinoza, 591 U. S., at ___ (slip 
op.,  at  16)  (dissenting  opinion).  Not  all  state-funded  pro-
grams that have religious restrictions carry the same risk 
of creating social division and conflict.  In my view, that risk
can best be understood by considering the particular benefit
at issue, along with the reasons for the particular religious 
restriction at issue.  See ibid.; Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., 
at ___ (slip op., at 1) (BREYER, J., concurring in judgment). 
Recognition that States enjoy a degree of constitutional lee-
way  allows States  to  enact  laws  sensitive  to local  circum-
stances while also allowing this Court to consider those cir-
cumstances  in  light  of  the  basic  values  underlying  the 
Religion Clauses.

In  a  word,  to  interpret  the  two  Clauses  as  if  they  were
joined at the hip will work against their basic purpose: to
allow for an American society with practitioners of over 100 
different religions, and those who do not practice religion at
all,  to  live  together  without  serious  risk  of  religion-based
social divisions. 

II 
The majority believes that the principles set forth in this
Court’s earlier cases easily resolve this case.  But they do