Tandon v. Newsom
593 U. S. ____ (2021) (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government regulation is not neutral and generally applicable, and thus is subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause, whenever it treats any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise. Comparability is determined by the risks the activities pose, not by the reasons people gather.
Facts:
- In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the State of California implemented a public health order known as the 'Blueprint System'.
- This order, among other things, limited all private at-home gatherings, including Bible studies and prayer meetings, to involve no more than three households.
- Ritesh Tandon and other individuals wished to host small religious gatherings in their homes that would include participants from more than three households.
- During the same period, California's regulations permitted various secular activities in commercial settings to involve more than three households at a time.
- These permitted secular activities included operations at hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, and indoor restaurants.
Procedural Posture:
- Ritesh Tandon and other plaintiffs sued Governor Gavin Newsom in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to block the state's three-household limit on at-home religious gatherings, alleging it violated the Free Exercise Clause.
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and sought an injunction pending the appeal.
- A panel of the Ninth Circuit denied the motion for an injunction pending appeal, leading the plaintiffs to seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme 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 public health order that restricts at-home religious gatherings to three households violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment when it permits various secular commercial activities to operate with more than three households present?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The state's public health order violates the Free Exercise Clause because it is not neutral and generally applicable. A rule triggers strict scrutiny whenever it treats any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise. The proper analysis compares the risks of the religious activity to any secular activities the state permits, not just those it restricts. California allows hair salons, retail stores, and restaurants to bring together more than three households, and the government failed to prove that at-home religious gatherings are inherently more dangerous than these activities, especially when similar precautions like masking and distancing are applied. The Ninth Circuit erred by dismissing these secular comparators simply because they occurred in commercial buildings rather than private homes, as comparability is about risk, not location.
Dissenting - Justice Kagan
No. The state's public health order does not violate the Free Exercise Clause because it treats religious conduct the same as comparable secular conduct. The correct comparison is between at-home religious gatherings and at-home secular gatherings, both of which California restricts equally to three households. Comparing at-home gatherings to commercial activities like hair salons is an incorrect analogy, like comparing 'apples and watermelons.' Furthermore, the majority improperly ignores the lower courts' factual findings, which were based on uncontested expert testimony, that at-home gatherings pose a higher risk of virus transmission than activities in commercial settings due to factors like duration of interaction, ventilation, and the difficulty of enforcing safety measures.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens protections for religious exercise against facially neutral public health orders by broadening the scope of 'comparable secular activity.' It establishes that if a state permits even one secular activity of similar risk to operate, it must permit religious activities to operate under the same conditions. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for governments to justify restrictions on religious gatherings during public emergencies, forcing them to either enact very broad restrictions on commercial and social life or apply the most lenient standards to religious practice as well. The ruling solidifies a trend of the Court's skepticism toward COVID-19 restrictions that differentiate between religious and secular activities.
