Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 100

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

1 

GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19–123 
_________________ 

SHARONELL FULTON, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

[June 17, 2021] 

JUSTICE  GORSUCH,  with  whom  JUSTICE  THOMAS  and 

JUSTICE ALITO join, concurring in the judgment. 

The Court granted certiorari to decide whether to over-
rule Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. 
Smith,  494  U. S.  872  (1990).    As  JUSTICE  ALITO’s  opinion
demonstrates,  Smith  failed  to  respect  this  Court’s  prece-
dents, was mistaken as a matter of the Constitution’s orig-
inal  public meaning,  and  has  proven  unworkable  in  prac-
tice.  A majority of our colleagues, however, seek to sidestep 
the  question.  They  agree  that  the  City  of  Philadelphia’s 
treatment  of  Catholic  Social  Services  (CSS)  violates  the
Free Exercise Clause.  But, they say, there’s no “need” or
“reason”  to  address  the  error  of  Smith  today.    Ante,  at  5 
(majority opinion); ante, at 2 (BARRETT, J., concurring).

On the surface it may seem a nice move, but dig an inch
deep and problems emerge.  Smith exempts “neutral” and
“generally  applicable”  laws  from  First  Amendment  scru-
tiny.  494 U. S., at 878–881.  The City argues that its chal-
lenged  rules  qualify  for  that  exemption  because  they  re-
quire  all  foster-care  agencies—religious  and  non-religious
alike—to recruit and certify same-sex couples interested in
serving  as  foster  parents.  For  its  part,  the  majority  as-
sumes (without deciding) that Philadelphia’s rule is indeed 
“neutral” toward religion.  Ante, at 5.  So to avoid Smith’s 
exemption and subject the City’s policy to First Amendment