Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 66

Cite as:  588 U. S. ____ (2019) 

11 

GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

frieze in our own courtroom or on the doors leading into it?  
Or the statues of Moses and the Apostle Paul next door in 
the  Library  of  Congress?    Or  the  depictions  of  the  Ten 
Commandments found in the Justice Department and the 
National  Archives?    Or  the  crosses  that  can  be  found  in 
the U. S. Capitol building?  And all that just takes us mere 
steps  from  where  we  sit.    In  light  of  today’s  decision,  we 
should  be  done  with  this  business,  and  our  lower  court 
colleagues  may  dispose  of  cases  like  these  on  a  motion  to 
dismiss  rather  than  enmeshing  themselves  for  years  in 
intractable disputes sure to generate more heat than light. 

* 
  In  a  large  and  diverse  country,  offense  can  be  easily 
found.    Really,  most  every  governmental  action  probably 
offends  somebody.    No  doubt,  too,  that  offense  can  be 
sincere, sometimes well taken, even wise.  But recourse for 
disagreement and offense does not lie in federal litigation.  
Instead,  in  a  society  that  holds  among  its  most  cherished 
ambitions  mutual  respect,  tolerance,  self-rule,  and  demo-
cratic  responsibility,  an  “offended  viewer”  may  “avert  his 
eyes,” Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 212 (1975), 
or pursue a political solution.  Today’s decision represents 
a welcome step toward restoring this Court’s recognition of 
these truths, and I respectfully concur in the judgment.