Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 69.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

29 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

the fact that the Court has not referred to Lemon in all sit-
uations support this Court’s decision to dismiss that prece-
dent entirely, particularly in the school context.  

C 
Upon overruling one “grand unified theory,” the Court in-
troduces  another:  It  holds  that  courts  must  interpret
whether  an  Establishment  Clause  violation  has  occurred 
mainly  “by  ‘reference  to  historical  practices  and  under-
standings.’ ”  Ante, at 23 (quoting Town of Greece, 572 U. S., 
at 576 (internal quotation marks omitted)).  Here again, the 
Court  professes  that  nothing  has  changed.    In  fact,  while 
the Court has long referred to historical practice as one el-
ement  of  the  analysis  in  specific  Establishment  Clause 
cases, the Court has never announced this as a general test
or exclusive focus.  American Legion, 588 U. S., at ___–___ 
(BREYER, J., concurring) (slip op., at 2–3) (noting that the
Court was “appropriately ‘look[ing] to history for guidance’ ” 
but was not “adopt[ing] a ‘history and tradition test’ ”).

The Court reserves any meaningful explanation of its his-
tory-and-tradition test for another day, content for now to 
disguise it as established law and move on.  It should not 
escape  notice,  however,  that  the  effects  of  the  majority’s 
new rule could be profound.  The problems with elevating 
history and tradition over purpose and precedent are well
documented.  See  Dobbs,  597  U. S.,  at  ___  (BREYER, 
SOTOMAYOR,  and  KAGAN, JJ.,  dissenting)  (slip  op.,  at  16) 
(explaining  that  the  Framers  “defined  rights  in  general
terms to permit future evolution in their scope and mean-
ing”); New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 
U. S. ___, ___–___ (2022) (BREYER, J., dissenting) (slip op., 
at 24–28) (explaining the pitfalls of a “near-exclusive reli-
ance on history” and offering examples of when this Court 
has “misread” history in the past); Brown v. Davenport, 596 
U. S. ___, ___–___ (2022) (KAGAN, J., dissenting) (slip op., at