Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a145_gfbi.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

6 

DR. A v. HOCHUL 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

they are likely to suffer.  Roman Catholic Diocese of Brook-
lyn v. Cuomo, 592 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 2).  In 
this case, no one seriously disputes that, absent relief, the 
applicants will suffer an irreparable injury.  Not only does 
New  York  threaten  to  have  them  fired  and  strip  them  of
unemployment  benefits.  This  Court  has  held  that  “[t]he
loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal peri-
ods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” 
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347, 373 (1976).  Accordingly, be-
fore us the parties’ fight focuses dominantly on whether the 
applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their First
Amendment claim. 

The answer to that question is clear.  The Free Exercise 
Clause  protects  not  only  the  right  to  hold  unpopular  reli-
gious beliefs inwardly and secretly.  It protects the right to
live out those beliefs publicly in “the performance of (or ab-
stention  from)  physical  acts.”  Employment  Div.,  Dept.  of 
Human  Resources  of  Ore.  v.  Smith,  494  U. S.  872,  877 
(1990).  Under this Court’s precedents, laws targeting acts
for  disfavor  only  when  they  are  religious  in  nature  or  be-
cause of their religious character are “doubtless . . . uncon-
stitutional.”  Id.,  at  877–878.    As  a  result,  where  “official 
expressions of hostility to religion” accompany laws or poli-
cies  burdening  free  exercise,  we  have  simply  “set  aside” 
inquiry.  Masterpiece 
such  policies  without  further 
Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. 
___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 18).  But even where such overt 
animus  is  lacking,  laws  that  impose  burdens  on  religious 
exercises  must  still  be  both  neutral  toward  religion  and
generally  applicable  or  survive  strict  scrutiny.   Church  of 
Lukumi  Babalu  Aye,  Inc.  v.  Hialeah,  508  U. S.  520,  546 
(1993).  To meet its burden under strict scrutiny, the gov-
ernment must demonstrate that its law is narrowly tailored 
to serve a compelling state interest.  Id., at 531–532.  Ap-
plying  these  principles  to  this  case,  New  York’s  mandate 
falters at each step.