Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

5 

Per Curiam 

by the Executive Order can seat at least 500 people, about
14 can accommodate at least 700, and 2 can seat over 1,000. 
Similarly, Agudath Israel of Kew Garden Hills can seat up 
to 400.  It is hard to believe that admitting more than 10 
people to a 1,000–seat church or 400–seat synagogue would 
create a more serious health risk than the many other ac-
tivities that the State allows. 
  Irreparable  harm.  There  can  be  no  question  that  the 
challenged  restrictions,  if  enforced,  will  cause  irreparable
harm.  “The  loss  of  First  Amendment  freedoms,  for  even 
minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irrep-
arable  injury.”  Elrod  v.  Burns,  427  U. S.  347,  373  (1976) 
(plurality opinion).  If only 10 people are admitted to each
service, the great majority of those who wish to attend Mass
on  Sunday  or  services  in  a  synagogue  on  Shabbat  will  be
barred.  And while those who are shut out may in some in-
stances be able to watch services on television, such remote 
viewing is not the same as personal attendance.  Catholics 
who watch a Mass at home cannot receive communion, and 
there  are  important  religious  traditions  in  the  Orthodox 
Jewish faith that require personal attendance.  App. to Ap-
plication in No. 20A90, at 26–27. 
  Public interest.  Finally, it has not been shown that grant-
ing  the  applications  will  harm  the  public.  As  noted,  the 
State  has  not  claimed  that  attendance  at  the  applicants’ 
services has resulted in the spread of the disease.  And the 
State has not shown that public health would be imperiled 
if less restrictive measures were imposed.

Members of this Court are not public health experts, and
we should respect the judgment of those with special exper-
tise and responsibility in this area.  But even in a pandemic,
the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.  The re-
strictions  at  issue  here,  by  effectively  barring  many  from
attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the 
First  Amendment’s  guarantee  of  religious  liberty.    Before 
allowing this to occur, we have a duty to conduct a serious