The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.

Statement of Justice KAVANAUGH, with whom Justice ALITO and Justice GORSUCH join, respecting the denial of certiorari.

As this Court has repeatedly held, governmental discrimination against religion-in particular, discrimination against religious persons, religious organizations, and religious speech-violates the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. In the words of Justice Brennan, the "government may not use religion as a basis of classification for the imposition of duties, penalties, privileges or benefits." McDaniel v. Paty , 435 U.S. 618 , 639, 98 S.Ct. 1322 , 55 L.Ed.2d 593 (1978) (opinion concurring in judgment). Under the Constitution, the government may not discriminate against religion generally or against particular religious denominations. See Larson v. Valente , 456 U.S. 228 , 244, 102 S.Ct. 1673 , 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982).

For example, in McDaniel , a Tennessee statute disqualified ministers from serving as delegates to Tennessee's constitutional convention. The Court ruled the statute unconstitutional, explaining that the Constitution does not allow the government to discriminate against religious persons by prohibiting their service in a public office. See 435 U.S. at 629 , 98 S.Ct. 1322 .

In Good News , a school district in New York allowed residents to use the local public high school for social, civic, and recreational events. But the school district prohibited a religious organization from using the school, simply because the organization was religious. This Court held that the school district's exclusion of the religious organization was unconstitutional discrimination against religion. See 533 U.S. at 109 , 121 S.Ct. 2093 .

That same principle of religious equality applies to governmental benefits or grants programs in which religious organizations or people seek benefits or grants on the same terms as secular organizations or people-at least, our precedents say, so long as the government does not fund the training of clergy, for example. See Trinity Lutheran , 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 2023-2024 ; Locke v. Davey , 540 U.S. 712 , 721, 725, 124 S.Ct. 1307 , 158 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004).

In Trinity Lutheran , Missouri barred a religious school from obtaining a state funding grant for the school's playground. By contrast, Missouri allowed secular private schools to obtain state funding grants for their schools' playgrounds. This Court held that Missouri's law was unconstitutional. The Court stated that the Constitution "protects religious observers against unequal treatment." 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 2019 (alterations omitted). In the Court's description, Missouri's law reflected an unconstitutional policy of "No churches need apply." Id ., at ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct., at 2024 . The Court minced no words: Discriminating against religious schools because the schools are religious "is odious to our Constitution." Id ., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 2025 .

In this case, New Jersey's "No religious organizations need apply" for historic preservation grants appears similar to, for example, Missouri's "No religious schools need apply" for school playground grants and New York's "No religious clubs need apply" for use of school facilities and Tennessee's "No ministers need apply" for state office.

To be clear, this is not a case like Lee v. Weisman , 505 U.S. 577 , 112 S.Ct. 2649 , 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992) ; Marsh v. Chambers , 463 U.S. 783 , 103 S.Ct. 3330 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983) ; or County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter , 492 U.S. 573 , 109 S.Ct. 3086 , 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989), where the government itself is engaging in religious speech, such as a government-sponsored[*911] prayer or a government-sponsored religious display. Nor is this a case like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. , 573 U.S. 682 , 134 S.Ct. 2751 , 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014), or Smith , 494 U.S. 872 , 110 S.Ct. 1595 , 108 L.Ed.2d 876 , where a religious group or person is asking for an accommodation or exemption from a generally applicable law. Under the Court's precedents, both of those categories of cases can pose difficult questions. This kind of case, by contrast, should not be as difficult: Barring religious organizations because they are religious from a general historic preservation grants program is pure discrimination against religion.

At some point, this Court will need to decide whether governments that distribute historic preservation funds may deny funds to religious organizations simply because the organizations are religious. But at this point and in this case, it is appropriate to deny certiorari, for two main reasons. First, the factual details of the Morris County program are not entirely clear. In particular, it is not evident precisely what kinds of buildings can be funded under the Morris County program. That factual uncertainty about the scope of the program could hamper our analysis of petitioners' religious discrimination claim. Second, this Court decided Trinity Lutheran only recently, and there is not yet a robust post- Trinity Lutheran body of case law in the lower courts on the question whether governments may exclude religious organizations from general historic preservation grants programs.

For those reasons, denial of certiorari is appropriate. As always, a denial of certiorari does not imply agreement or disagreement with the decision of the relevant federal court of appeals or state supreme court. In my view, prohibiting historic preservation grants to religious organizations simply because the organizations are religious would raise serious questions under this Court's precedents and the Constitution's fundamental guarantee of equality.