Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf
Page Number: 18

14 

TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF COLUMBIA, INC. v.
COMER 
Opinion of the Court 

apply.3 

C 
The  State  in  this  case  expressly  requires  Trinity  Lu-
theran  to  renounce  its  religious  character  in  order  to 
participate  in  an  otherwise  generally  available  public 
benefit program, for which it is fully qualified.  Our cases 
make clear that such a condition imposes a penalty on the
free  exercise  of  religion  that  must  be  subjected  to  the 
“most rigorous” scrutiny.  Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 546.4 

Under that stringent standard, only a state interest “of
the  highest  order”  can  justify  the  Department’s  discrimi-
natory policy.  McDaniel, 435 U. S., at 628 (internal quota-
tion  marks  omitted).  Yet  the  Department  offers  nothing
more  than  Missouri’s  policy  preference  for  skating  as  far 
as  possible  from  religious  establishment  concerns.    Brief 
for  Respondent  15–16.  In  the  face  of  the  clear  infringe-
ment on free exercise before us, that interest cannot qual- 
ify as compelling.  As we said when considering Missouri’s
same  policy  preference  on  a  prior  occasion,  “the  state
interest asserted here—in achieving greater separation of
church  and  State  than  is  already  ensured  under  the  Es-
tablishment Clause of the Federal Constitution—is limited 
by the Free Exercise Clause.”  Widmar, 454 U. S., at 276. 

The State has pursued its preferred policy to the point of 
expressly  denying  a  qualified  religious  entity  a  public 
benefit solely because of its religious character.  Under our 
precedents,  that  goes  too  far.  The  Department’s  policy 
—————— 

3 This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity 
with  respect  to  playground  resurfacing.    We  do  not  address  religious 
uses of funding or other forms of discrimination. 

4 We have held that “a law targeting religious beliefs as such is never 
permissible.”  Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 533; see also McDaniel v. Paty, 435 
U. S.  618,  626  (1978)  (plurality  opinion).    We  do  not  need  to  decide 
whether  the  condition  Missouri  imposes  in  this  case  falls  within  the
scope  of  that  rule,  because  it  cannot  survive  strict  scrutiny  in  any 
event.