Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 67

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

3 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

that  clear  command,  this  Court  has  long  acknowledged
that  governmental  actions  that  favor  one  religion  “inevi­
tabl[y]” foster “the hatred, disrespect and even contempt of 
those  who  [hold]  contrary  beliefs.”  Engel  v.  Vitale,  370 
U. S.  421,  431  (1962).  That  is  so,  this  Court  has  held, 
because  such  acts  send  messages  to  members  of  minority 
faiths  “ ‘that  they  are  outsiders,  not  full  members  of  the 
political community.’ ”  Santa Fe Independent School Dist. 
v.  Doe,  530  U. S.  290,  309  (2000).    To  guard  against  this
serious harm, the Framers mandated a strict “principle of 
denominational  neutrality.”  Larson,  456  U. S.,  at  246; 
Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. Grumet, 
512 U. S. 687, 703 (1994) (recognizing the role of courts in
“safeguarding  a  principle  at  the  heart  of  the  Establish­
ment  Clause,  that  government  should  not  prefer  one  reli­
gion to another, or religion to irreligion”).

“When  the  government  acts  with  the  ostensible  and 
predominant purpose” of disfavoring a particular religion,
“it  violates  that  central  Establishment  Clause  value  of 
official  religious  neutrality,  there  being  no  neutrality
when  the  government’s  ostensible  object  is  to  take  sides.” 
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 
545 U. S. 844, 860 (2005).  To determine whether plaintiffs
have proved an Establishment Clause violation, the Court 
asks  whether  a  reasonable  observer  would  view  the  gov­
ernment action as enacted for the purpose of disfavoring a 
religion.  See  id.,  at  862,  866;  accord,  Town  of  Greece  v. 
Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (plurality opinion) (slip 
op., at 19).

In  answering  that  question,  this  Court  has  generally 
considered the text of the government policy, its operation,
and any available evidence regarding “the historical back­
ground of the decision under challenge, the specific series
of  events  leading  to  the  enactment  or  official  policy  in
question,  and  the  legislative  or  administrative  history, 
including  contemporaneous  statements  made  by”  the