Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19a1070_08l1.pdf
Page Number: 3

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

rective’s discriminatory treatment of houses of worship vio-
lates the First Amendment.  In addition, unconstitutionally 
preventing attendance at worship services inflicts irrepara-
ble harm on Calvary Chapel and its congregants, and the 
State has made no effort to show that conducting services 
in accordance with Calvary Chapel’s plan would pose any 
greater risk to public health than many other activities that 
the directive allows, such as  going to the gym.  The State 
certainly has not shown that church attendance under Cal-
vary Chapel’s plan is riskier than what goes on in casinos. 
  For months now, States and their subdivisions have re-
sponded  to  the  pandemic  by  imposing  unprecedented  re-
strictions on personal liberty, including the free exercise of 
religion.    This  initial  response  was  understandable.    In 
times of crisis, public officials must respond quickly and de-
cisively to evolving and uncertain situations.  At the dawn 
of an emergency—and the opening days of the COVID–19 
outbreak plainly qualify—public officials may not be able to 
craft precisely tailored rules.  Time, information, and exper-
tise may be in short supply, and those responsible for en-
forcement  may  lack  the  resources  needed  to  administer 
rules that draw fine distinctions.  Thus, at the outset of an 
emergency, it may be appropriate for courts to tolerate very 
blunt rules.  In general, that is what has happened thus far 
during the COVID–19 pandemic. 
  But  a  public  health  emergency does  not  give Governors 
and  other  public  officials  carte  blanche  to  disregard  the 
Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists.  As 
more  medical  and  scientific  evidence  becomes  available, 
and as States have time to craft policies in light of that ev-
idence, courts should expect policies that more carefully ac-
count for constitutional rights.  Governor Sisolak issued the 
directive in question on May 28, more than two months af-
ter declaring a state of emergency on March 12.  Now four 
months  have  passed  since  the  original  declaration.    The 
problem is no longer one of exigency, but one of considered