Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 74

52 

FULTON v. PHILADELPHIA 

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

many possible explanations for what happened in the Sen-
ate.  The rejection of the proviso could have been due to a 
general objection to religious exemptions, but it could also
have been based on any of the following grounds: opposition 
to  this  particular  exemption,  the  belief  that  conscientious 
objectors  were  already  protected  by  the  Free  Exercise
Clause, a belief that military service fell within the public 
safety carveout, or the view that Congress should be able to 
decide whether to grant or withhold such exemptions based 
on its assessment of what national security required at par-
ticular times. 

* 

* 

* 

In sum, based on the text of the Free Exercise Clause and 
evidence about the original understanding of the free-exer-
cise right, the case for Smith fails to overcome the more nat-
ural reading of the text.  Indeed, the case against Smith is 
very convincing. 

V 
That  conclusion  cannot  end  our  analysis.    “We  will  not 
overturn a past decision unless there are strong grounds for
doing so,” Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employ-
ees, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 34), but at the same 
time,  stare  decisis  is  “not  an  inexorable  command.”    Ibid. 
(internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    It  “is  at  its  weakest 
when we interpret the Constitution because our interpreta-
tion can be altered only by constitutional amendment or by 
overruling our prior decisions.”  Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 
203, 235 (1997).  And it applies with “perhaps least force of 
all  to  decisions  that  wrongly  denied  First  Amendment 
rights.”  Janus, 585 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 34); see also 
Federal  Election  Comm’n  v.  Wisconsin  Right  to  Life,  Inc., 
551 U. S. 449, 500 (2007) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and 
concurring in judgment) (“This Court has not hesitated to
overrule  decisions  offensive  to  the  First  Amendment  (a