Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 85.0

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

63 

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

to vary simply with the number of constitutional rights that 
the  plaintiff  asserts  have  been  violated”);  Knight  v.  Con-
necticut Dept. of Pub. Health, 275 F. 3d 156, 167 (CA2 2001); 
Combs,  540  F. 3d,  at  247  (“Until  the  Supreme  Court  pro-
vides  direction,  we  believe  the  hybrid-rights  theory  to  be
dicta”).

A second camp holds that the hybrid-rights exception ap-
plies  only  when  a  free-exercise  claim  is  joined  with  some 
other independently viable claim.  See Archdiocese of Wash-
ington v. WMATA, 897 F. 3d 314, 331 (CADC 2018) (A “hy-
brid  rights  claim  . . .  requires  independently  viable  free 
speech  and  free  exercise  claims”);  Gary  S.  v.  Manchester 
School Dist., 374 F. 3d 15, 19 (CA1 2004) (adopting District 
Court’s reasoning that “the [hybrid-rights] exception can be
invoked only if the plaintiff has joined a free exercise chal-
lenge  with  another  independently  viable  constitutional 
claim,” 241 F. Supp. 2d 111, 121 (NH 2003)); Brown v. Hot, 
Sexy and Safer Productions, 68 F. 3d 525, 539 (CA1 1995).
But this approach essentially makes the free-exercise claim
irrelevant.  See  Axson-Flynn  v.  Johnson,  356  F. 3d  1277, 
1296–1297  (CA10  2004)  (“[I]t  makes  no  sense  to  adopt  a 
strict standard that essentially requires a successful com-
panion claim because such a test would make the free exer-
cise claim unnecessary”); see also Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 567 
(opinion of Souter, J.) (making the same point). 

The third group requires that the non-free-exercise claim 
be “colorable.”  See Cornerstone Christian Schools v. Uni-
versity Interscholastic League, 563 F. 3d 127, 136, n. 8 (CA5 
2009); San Jose Christian College v. Morgan Hill, 360 F. 3d 
1024,  1032–1033  (CA9  2004);  Axson-Flynn,  356  F. 3d,  at 
1295–1297.  But what that means is obscure.  See, e.g., id., 
at 1295 (referring to “helpful” analogies such as the “ ‘like-
lihood of success on the merits’ standard for preliminary in-
junctions”  or  the  pre-Antiterrorism  and  Effective  Death 
Penalty Act standard for obtaining an evidentiary hearing,