Court Opinion

ID: 9433036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:38:46.042794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:38.877749
License: Public Domain

Justice Blackmun,
concurring.
For the reasons stated by Justice Souter and Justice Stevens, whose opinions I join, I agree that the New York statute under review violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I write separately only to note my disagreement with any suggestion that today’s decision signals a departure from the principles described in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971). The opinion of the Court (and of the plurality with respect to Part II-A) relies upon several decisions, including Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U. S. 116 (1982), that explicitly rested on the criteria set forth in Lemon. Indeed, the two principles on which the opinion bases its conclusion that the legislative Act is constitutionally invalid essentially are the second and third Lemon criteria. See ante, at 697; Larkin, 459 U. S., at 126-127 (finding “ ‘a fusion of governmental and religious functions’ ” under Lemon’s “entanglement” prong); 459 U. S., at 125-126 (finding a lack of any “‘effective means of guaranteeing’” that governmental power will be neutrally employed under Lemon’s “ ‘principal’ or ‘primary effect’ ” prong).
I have no quarrel with the observation of Justice O’Connor, post, at 718-719, that the application of constitutional principles, including those articulated in Lemon, must be sensitive to particular contexts. But I remain convinced of the general validity of the basic principles stated in Lemon, which have guided this Court’s Establishment Clause deci*711sions in over 30 cases. See Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 603, n. 4 (1992) (Blackmun, J., concurring).