Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–1088 
_________________ 

DAVID CARSON, AS PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND OF O. C., 
ET AL., PETITIONERS v. A. PENDER MAKIN 

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

[June 21, 2022] 

JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN joins, and 
with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins except as to Part I–
B, dissenting. 

The  First  Amendment  begins  by  forbidding  the  govern-
ment from “mak[ing] [any] law respecting an establishment 
of religion.”  It next forbids them to make any law “prohib-
iting  the  free  exercise thereof.”    The  Court  today  pays  al-
most no attention to the words in the first Clause while giv-
ing almost exclusive attention to the words in the second. 
The majority also fails to recognize the “ ‘play in the joints’ ” 
between the two Clauses.  See Trinity Lutheran Church of 
Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., 
at  6).  That  “play”  gives  States  some  degree  of  legislative 
leeway.  It sometimes allows a State to further antiestab-
lishment interests by withholding aid from religious insti-
tutions without violating the Constitution’s protections for
the free exercise of religion.  In my view, Maine’s nonsec-
tarian requirement falls squarely within the scope of that 
constitutional leeway.  I respectfully dissent. 

I 
A 
The  First  Amendment’s  two  Religion  Clauses  together
provide that the government “shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise