Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak
140 S.Ct. 2603 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, a state government cannot impose stricter public health restrictions on religious gatherings than it does on comparable secular activities that pose similar or greater risks of virus transmission, unless the state provides a compelling justification for the differential treatment.
Facts:
- In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of Nevada issued an emergency directive governing public gatherings.
- The directive limited attendance at all houses of worship, including Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley, to a maximum of 50 people, regardless of the building's size or capacity.
- The same directive permitted numerous secular businesses—including casinos, restaurants, bars, gyms, and bowling alleys—to operate at 50% of their total fire-code occupancy.
- For example, a casino with a 500-person capacity could admit 250 patrons, while a church of the same size was limited to 50 congregants.
- Calvary Chapel proposed a plan to hold services for more than 50 people while adhering to strict safety protocols, including social distancing and mask-wearing.
- The Governor of Nevada publicly supported and participated in a large protest where attendees openly violated the directive's 50-person gathering limit.
Procedural Posture:
- Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley sued Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
- The church sought a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of the state's 50-person cap on worship services.
- The federal district court (trial court) denied the church's request for an injunction.
- Calvary Chapel appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and sought an injunction pending appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit (intermediate appellate court) also denied the request for an injunction.
- Calvary Chapel then filed an emergency application for injunctive relief with the U.S. Supreme Court (highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state's COVID-19 emergency directive that imposes a strict 50-person numerical cap on houses of worship, while allowing secular businesses like casinos, restaurants, and gyms to operate at 50% of their fire-code capacity, violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Dissenting - Justice Alito
Yes, the directive violates the First Amendment. The directive blatantly discriminates against houses of worship and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny, which it cannot survive. By allowing thousands to gather in casinos and other favored facilities under more lenient rules, the state cannot claim a compelling interest in limiting religious gatherings to a flat 50-person cap. The directive also constitutes viewpoint discrimination under the Free Speech Clause, as it favors secular expression in places like casinos over religious expression in houses of worship. Furthermore, the state's reliance on Jacobson v. Massachusetts is misplaced, as that case did not involve the First Amendment and does not provide the correct test for a discriminatory statewide measure of indefinite duration.
Dissenting - Justice Gorsuch
Yes, the directive violates the First Amendment. The case presents a simple and obvious form of discrimination against religion. There is no constitutional basis for allowing a casino or a multiplex movie theater to host hundreds of people while banning a church from admitting more than 50 worshippers, regardless of the precautions taken. The First Amendment prohibits the state from favoring secular entertainment, such as that at Caesars Palace, over the free exercise of religion at places like Calvary Chapel.
Dissenting - Justice Kavanaugh
Yes, the directive violates the First Amendment. When a state creates a system that treats some secular organizations more favorably than religious organizations, it must provide a sufficient justification for the differential treatment. Nevada has failed to provide a persuasive public health or economic justification for applying a 50% capacity rule to casinos, bars, and gyms while imposing a strict 50-person cap on places of worship. The state's implicit judgment that for-profit assemblies are more important than religious gatherings devalues religion in violation of the Constitution. While states deserve deference in emergencies, COVID-19 is not a 'blank check' to engage in religious discrimination.
Analysis:
Although this decision was a denial of injunctive relief, the forceful dissents signaled a significant shift in the Court's jurisprudence concerning the Free Exercise Clause during public health emergencies. The opinions moved away from the broad deference to state authority established in Jacobson v. Massachusetts and toward a more rigorous application of strict scrutiny for any regulation that treats religious activities less favorably than comparable secular ones. These dissents laid the doctrinal groundwork for later majority opinions in cases like Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, which ultimately granted relief to religious organizations challenging similar COVID-19 restrictions.
