Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 11

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

tects against “indirect coercion or penalties on the free ex-
ercise  of  religion,  not  just  outright  prohibitions.”    Lyng  v. 
Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn., 485 U. S. 439, 
450 (1988).  In particular, we have repeatedly held that a
State  violates  the  Free  Exercise  Clause  when  it  excludes 
religious  observers  from  otherwise  available  public  bene-
fits.  See Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 404 (1963) (“It 
is too late in the day to doubt that the liberties of religion
and expression may be infringed by the denial of or placing 
of conditions upon a benefit or privilege.”); see also Everson 
v.  Board  of  Ed.  of  Ewing,  330  U. S.  1,  16  (1947)  (a  State
“cannot exclude” individuals “because of their faith, or lack 
of  it,  from  receiving  the  benefits  of  public  welfare  legisla-
tion”).  A State may not withhold unemployment benefits,
for instance, on the ground that an individual lost his job
for refusing to abandon the dictates of his faith.  See Sher-
bert, 374 U. S., at 399–402 (Seventh-day Adventist who re-
fused to work on the Sabbath); Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. 
Employment  Security  Div.,  450  U. S.  707,  709,  720  (1981) 
(Jehovah’s  Witness  who  refused  to  participate  in  the  pro-
duction of armaments).

We have recently applied these principles in the context
of two state efforts to withhold otherwise available public 
benefits from religious organizations.  In Trinity Lutheran 
Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U. S. ___ (2017), we 
considered a Missouri program that offered grants to qual-
ifying  nonprofit  organizations  that  installed  cushioning
playground surfaces made from recycled rubber tires.  The 
Missouri Department of Natural Resources maintained an
express  policy  of  denying  such  grants  to  any  applicant 
owned or controlled by a church, sect, or other religious en-
tity.  The Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center
applied for a grant to resurface its gravel playground, but 
the Department denied funding on the ground that the Cen-
ter was operated by the Church.