Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19a1070_08l1.pdf
Page Number: 20

8 

CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY v. SISOLAK 

KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting 

II 
  I turn then to analyzing Nevada’s rules under the Court’s 
precedents.  As JUSTICE ALITO explains in his dissent, Ne-
vada has now had more than four months to respond to the 
initial COVID–19 crisis and adjust its line-drawing as cir-
cumstances  change.    Yet  Nevada  is  still  discriminating 
against religion.  Nevada applies a strict 50-person attend-
ance cap to religious worship services, but applies a looser 
50%  occupancy  cap  to  secular  organizations  like  restau-
rants, bars, casinos, and gyms. 
  Nevada  has  gestured  at  two  possible  justifications  for 
that  discrimination:  public  health  and  the  economy.    But 
neither argument is persuasive on this record. 
  First is the State’s public health rationale.  Nevada un-
doubtedly  has  a  compelling  interest  in  combating  the 
spread  of  COVID–19  and  protecting  the  health  of  its  citi-
zens.  But it does not have a persuasive public health reason 
for treating churches differently from restaurants, bars, ca-
sinos, and gyms.  Calvary Chapel is happy to abide by the 
same 50% occupancy cap or some stricter across-the-board 
standard, as the State sees fit, so long as the same standard 
applies  to  those  secular  businesses.    And  the  Church  has 
committed  to  social  distancing,  mask  requirements,  and 
certain voluntary safety measures. 
  The State has not explained why a 50% occupancy cap is 
good  enough  for  secular  businesses  where  people  congre-
gate  in  large  groups  or  remain  in  close  proximity  for  ex-
tended periods—such as at restaurants, bars, casinos, and 
gyms—but is not good enough for places of worship.  Again, 
it does not suffice to point out that some secular businesses, 
such  as  movie  theaters,  are  subject  to  the  lesser  of  a  50-
person  or  50%  occupancy  cap.    The  legal  question  is  not 
whether religious worship services are all alone in a disfa-
vored category, but why they are in the disfavored category 
to begin with.  See Smith, 494 U. S., at 884.  And Nevada 
has  not  advanced  a  sufficient  public  health  rationale  for