In concurring opinions to "The American Legion v. American Humanist Association" (2019), some of the Court's more conservative justices heavily criticized the "Lemon" test. Justice Samuel Alito stated that the "Lemon" test had "short-comings" and that "as Establishment Clause cases involving a great array of laws and practices came to the Court, it became more and more apparent that the Lemon test could not resolve them." Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that the Court "no longer applies the old test articulated in "Lemon v. Kurtzman"" and said that "the Court’s decisions over the span of several decades demonstrate that the Lemon test is not good law and does not apply to Establishment Clause cases." Although the Court did not overrule "Lemon v. Kurtzman" in "American Legion v. American Humanist Association", Justice Thomas stated that he "would take the logical next step and overrule the Lemon test in all contexts" because "the Lemon test is not good law." Additionally, Justice Neil Gorsuch called "Lemon v. Kurtzman" a "misadventure" and claimed that it has now been "shelved" by the Court. Justice Elena Kagan, however, defended the "Lemon" test, stating that "although I agree that rigid application of the Lemon test does not solve every Establishment Clause problem, I think that test’s focus on purposes and effects is crucial in evaluating government action in this sphere—as this very suit shows."