Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a105_p860.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2020) 

1 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20A105 
_________________ 

HIGH PLAINS HARVEST CHURCH, ET AL., v. JARED 
POLIS, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

[December 15, 2020] 

  The application for injunctive relief, presented to JUSTICE 
GORSUCH and by him referred to the Court, is treated as a 
petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, and the pe-
tition is granted.  The August 10 order of the United States 
District  Court  for  the District  of  Colorado  is vacated,  and 
the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals 
for  the  Tenth  Circuit  with  instructions  to  remand  to  the 
District Court for further consideration in light of Roman 
Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U. S. ___ (2020).  
  JUSTICE  KAGAN,  with  whom  JUSTICE  BREYER  and 
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting. 
  I  respectfully  dissent  because  this  case  is  moot.    High 
Plains Harvest Church has sought to enjoin Colorado’s ca-
pacity limits on worship services.  But Colorado has lifted 
all those limits.  The State has explained that it took that 
action in response to this Court’s recent decision in Roman 
Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U. S. ___ (2020).  
See  Brief  in  Opposition  15.    Absent  our  issuing  different 
guidance, there is no reason to think Colorado will reverse 
course—and  so  no  reason  to  think  Harvest  Church  will 
again face capacity limits.  When “subsequent events” thus 
show  that  a  challenged  action  cannot  “reasonably  be  ex-
pected to recur,” a case is well and truly over.  Friends of 
the  Earth,  Inc.  v.  Laidlaw  Environmental  Services (TOC), 
Inc.,  528  U. S.  167,  189  (2000)  (internal  quotation  marks 
omitted).