Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

TANDON v. NEWSOM 

Per Curiam 

the State has not shown that “public health would be im-
periled”  by  employing  less  restrictive  measures.    Roman 
Catholic Diocese, 592 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5).  Accord-
ingly, applicants are entitled to an injunction pending ap-
peal. 
  This  is  the fifth time the  Court  has  summarily  rejected 
the  Ninth  Circuit’s  analysis  of  California’s  COVID  re-
strictions on religious exercise.  See Harvest Rock Church 
v. Newsom, 592 U. S. ___ (2020); South Bay, 592 U. S. ___; 
Gish  v.  Newsom,  592  U. S.  ___  (2021);  Gateway  City,  592 
U. S. ___.  It is unsurprising that such litigants are entitled 
to relief.  California’s Blueprint System contains myriad ex-
ceptions  and  accommodations  for  comparable  activities, 
thus requiring the application of strict scrutiny.  And his-
torically, strict scrutiny requires the State to further “inter-
ests  of  the  highest  order”  by  means  “narrowly  tailored  in 
pursuit of those interests.”  Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, 
Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 546 (1993) (internal quota-
tion marks omitted).  That standard “is not watered down”; 
it “really means what it says.”  Ibid. (quotation altered). 
  THE CHIEF JUSTICE would deny the application.