Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a90_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

2 

DOES 1–3 v. MILLS 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

___,  ___–___  (2018)  (slip  op.,  at  12–14).  Laws  that  single
out sincerely held religious beliefs or conduct based on them 
for sanction are “doubtless . . . unconstitutional.”  Employ-
ment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 
U. S. 872, 877 (1990).  But what about other laws?  Under 
this Court’s current jurisprudence, a law may survive First
Amendment scrutiny if it is generally applicable and neu-
tral toward religion.  If the law fails either of those tests, it 
may yet survive but the State must satisfy strict scrutiny.
To do that, the State must prove its law serves a compelling 
interest and employs the least restrictive means available 
for doing so.  See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hi-
aleah, 508 U. S. 520, 531–532 (1993); Smith, 494 U. S., at 
879. 

Maine does not dispute that its rule burdens the exercise 
of sincerely held religious beliefs.  The applicants explain 
that receiving the COVID–19 vaccines violates their faith 
because of what they view as an impermissible connection
between the vaccines and the cell lines of aborted fetuses. 
More specifically, they allege that the Johnson & Johnson
vaccine required the use of abortion-related materials in its
production, and that Moderna and Pfizer relied on aborted 
fetal cell lines to develop their vaccines.  Complaint ¶¶61–
68.  This  much,  the  applicants  say,  violates  foundational 
principles of their religious faith.  For purposes of these pro-
ceedings, Maine has contested none of this.

That takes us to the question whether Maine’s rule qual-
ifies  as  neutral  and  generally  applicable.  Under  this 
Court’s precedents, a law fails to qualify as generally appli-
cable, and thus triggers strict scrutiny, if it creates a mech-
anism for “individualized exemptions.”  Lukumi, 508 U. S., 
at 537; see also Fulton v. Philadelphia, 593 U. S. ___, ___– 
___ (2021) (slip op., at 5–6).

That  description  applies  to  Maine’s  regulation.    The 
State’s vaccine mandate is not absolute; individualized ex-