Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19a1070_08l1.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

10 

CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY v. SISOLAK 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

in Jacobson must be read in context, and it is important to 
keep in mind that Jacobson primarily involved a substan-
tive  due  process  challenge  to  a  local  ordinance  requiring 
residents to be vaccinated for small pox.3  It is a considera-
ble stretch to read the decision as establishing the test to be 
applied when statewide measures of indefinite duration are 
challenged under the First Amendment or other provisions 
not at issue in that case. 
  The State also points to the Court’s recent refusal to issue 
a temporary injunction against enforcement of a California 
law that limited  the  number of  persons  allowed  to  attend 
church services.  See South Bay United Pentecostal Church 
v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___ (2020).  I dissented from that de-
cision,  see  ibid.;  see  also  id.,  at  ___  (KAVANAUGH,  J.,  dis-
senting),  but  even  if  it  is  accepted,  that  case  is  different 
from the one now before us.  In South Bay, a church relied 
on the fact that the California law treated churches less fa-
vorably  than  certain  other  facilities,  such  as  factories,  of-
fices, supermarkets, restaurants, and retail stores.  But the 
law was defended on the ground that in these facilities, un-
like  in  houses  of  worship,  “people  neither  congregate  in 
large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended pe-
riods.”  Id., at ___ (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring) (slip op., at 
2).  That cannot be said about the facilities favored in Ne-
vada.    In  casinos  and  other  facilities  granted  preferential 
treatment  under  the  directive,  people  congregate  in  large 
groups and remain in close proximity for extended periods. 

—————— 

3 The Court brushed aside Jacobson’s claims that the challenged law 
violated the Preamble and the spirit of the Constitution.  Jacobson, 197 
U. S., at 22.  His claim under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment was doomed by the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 
Wall. 36, 76–80 (1873), and was not addressed by the Court.  Finally, the 
Court quickly rejected his equal protection claim, Jacobson, 197 U. S., at 
30, which was based on the law’s exemption for children and persons un-
der  guardianship,  see  Commonwealth  v.  Jacobson,  decided  with  Com-
monwealth v. Pear, 183 Mass. 242, 248, 66 N. E. 719, 722 (1903).