South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom
207 L. Ed. 2d 154, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (2020)
Rule of Law:
A government's temporary, non-discriminatory restrictions on public gatherings, including places of worship, designed to address an extraordinary public health emergency are generally permissible under the Free Exercise Clause, particularly when similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, and where the restrictions do not exceed broad limits in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty.
Facts:
- COVID-19, a novel severe acute respiratory illness, spread, killing thousands of people in California and over 100,000 nationwide.
- At the time, there was no known cure, effective treatment, or vaccine for COVID-19, and infected individuals could be asymptomatic and unwittingly infect others.
- California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order implementing temporary numerical restrictions on public gatherings to address this public health emergency.
- State guidelines limited attendance at places of worship to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever was lower.
- South Bay United Pentecostal Church sought to hold services on Pentecost Sunday and was willing to abide by the State’s rules regarding social distancing and hygiene, but objected to the 25% occupancy cap imposed on religious worship services.
- Many comparable secular businesses, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries, were not subject to the same 25% occupancy cap.
Procedural Posture:
- South Bay United Pentecostal Church (Applicants) filed an application for injunctive relief.
- The application for injunctive relief was presented to Justice Kagan.
- Justice Kagan referred the application to the full Supreme Court for a decision.
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 California's Executive Order, which places temporary numerical restrictions on attendance at places of worship to limit the spread of COVID-19, violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, given that certain secular businesses are not subject to the same occupancy caps?
Opinions:
Concurring - Chief Justice Roberts
No, California's Executive Order, which places temporary numerical restrictions on attendance at places of worship, appears consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that a request for injunctive relief demands a significantly higher justification than a stay, requiring that the legal rights at issue be "indisputably clear" and granted "sparingly." The Governor’s Order aimed to limit the spread of COVID-19, a severe illness with no known cure or vaccine, necessitating temporary restrictions on public gatherings. The restrictions on places of worship appeared consistent with the Free Exercise Clause because "similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings," such as lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups gather in close proximity for extended periods. The Order treated more leniently only "dissimilar activities," such as grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, where people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods. The Constitution primarily entrusts public health and safety to politically accountable state officials, whose latitude must be "especially broad" when acting in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties. He cautioned against an "unelected federal judiciary" second-guessing these dynamic, fact-intensive matters, particularly when a party seeks emergency relief in an interlocutory posture as local officials are actively shaping their response to changing facts on the ground, making it improbable that the government's limitations are "indisputably clear" as unconstitutional.
Dissenting - Justice Kavanaugh
Yes, California's latest safety guidelines, which impose a 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services but not on comparable secular businesses, discriminate against places of worship and therefore violate the First Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh argued that California’s rules discriminated against religious worship services because a long list of comparable secular businesses, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries, were not subject to the same 25% occupancy cap. He asserted that discrimination against religion is "odious to our Constitution." To justify such discriminatory treatment, the State must demonstrate a "compelling governmental interest" and that its rules are "narrowly tailored to advance that interest." While combating COVID-19 is an undoubtedly compelling interest, California failed to provide a compelling justification for distinguishing between religious worship services and these other secular businesses. He questioned, "Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew?" and criticized the State for assuming "the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings." He concluded that California could combat the spread of COVID-19 without discriminating against religion, for example, by requiring social-distancing and hygiene across the board or by imposing reasonable occupancy caps on all comparable activities.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the Supreme Court's deference to states' public health decisions, especially during emergencies involving scientific uncertainty, when evaluating Free Exercise challenges. It establishes a high bar for obtaining emergency injunctive relief against state pandemic measures, particularly when the state can show that religious gatherings are treated similarly to other gatherings presenting similar public health risks. The dissent highlights the ongoing tension in Free Exercise jurisprudence regarding governmental discrimination against religion versus generally applicable laws with incidental burdens, foreshadowing future challenges to pandemic-era restrictions.
