Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 50

28 

FULTON v. PHILADELPHIA 

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

State,  without  its  Consent,  shall  be  deprived  of  its  equal 
Suffrage in the Senate.”  Language mandating equal treat-
ment of one sort or another also appeared in the religious
liberty  provisions  of  colonial  charters  and  state  constitu-
tions.33  But Congress eschewed those models.  The contrast 
between these readily available anti-discrimination models 
and  the  language  that  appears  in  the  First  Amendment 
speaks volumes. 

IV 
A 
While  we  presume  that  the  words  of  the  Constitution
carry their ordinary and normal meaning, we cannot disre-
gard the possibility that some of the terms in the Free Ex-
ercise Clause had a special meaning that was well under-
stood at the time.  Heller, again, provides a helpful example. 
Heller  did  not  hold  that  the  right  to  keep  and  bear  arms
means that everyone has the right to keep and bear every 
type of weaponry in all places and at all times.  Instead, it 
held  that  the  Second  Amendment  protects  a  known  right 
that was understood to have defined dimensions.  554 U. S., 
at 626–628. 

Following  Heller’s  lead,  we  must  ask  whether  the  Free 
Exercise Clause protects a right that was known at the time 

—————— 

33 See, e.g., Del. Declaration of Rights §3 (1776), in The Complete Bill
of Rights 15 (N. Cogan ed. 1997) (Cogan) (“That all persons professing 
the Christian religion ought forever to enjoy equal rights and privileges 
in  this  state”  (emphasis  added));  Md.  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  33 
(1776), in id., at 17 (“[A]ll persons professing the christian religion are 
equally  entitled  to  protection  in  their  religious  liberty”  (emphasis
added)); N. Y. Const., Art. XXXVIII (1777), in id., at 26 (“[T]he free Ex-
ercise and Enjoyment of religious Profession and Worship, without Dis-
crimination or Preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed within this 
State  to  all  Mankind”  (emphasis  added));  S. C.  Const.,  Art.  VIII,  §1 
(1790), in id., at 41 (“The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profes-
sion  and  worship,  without  discrimination  or  preference,  shall,  forever 
hereafter,  be  allowed  within  this  state  to  all  mankind”  (emphasis
added)).