Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19a1070_08l1.pdf
Page Number: 6

6 

CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY v. SISOLAK 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

casinos to operate at 50% capacity is hard to swallow, and 
the State’s efforts to justify the discrimination are feeble.  It 
notes that patrons at gaming tables are supposed to wear 
masks and that the service of food at casinos is now limited, 
but congregants in houses of worship are also required to 
wear  masks,  and  they  do  not  consume  meals  during  ser-
vices. 
  The State notes that facilities other than houses of wor-
ship,  such  as  museums,  art  galleries,  zoos,  aquariums, 
trade  schools,  and  technical  schools,  are  also  treated  less 
favorably than casinos, but obviously that does not justify 
preferential treatment for casinos. 
  Finally, the State argues that preferential treatment for 
casinos is justified because the State is in a better position 
to enforce compliance by casinos, which are under close su-
pervision by state officials and subject to penalties if they 
violate state rules.  By contrast, the State notes, rules for 
houses of worship must be enforced by local authorities. 
  This  argument might make  some sense  if  enforcing  the 
50% capacity rule were materially harder than enforcing a 
flat 50-person rule.  But there is no reason to think that is 
so, let alone that it would be compelling enough to justify 
differential treatment of religion.  Local officials responsi-
ble for enforcing maximum occupancy limits during normal 
times presumably know or can easily ascertain the limit for 
particular churches, and the State does not claim that these 
officials have any trouble enforcing those limits.  In many 
jurisdictions, buildings that host gatherings are required to 
post their maximum occupancy figure in a prominent loca-
tion.  Enforcing a 50% limit would not require local officials 
to  do  anything  more  than  divide  that  figure  in  half,  and 
there is no reason to think that enforcing that limit would 
be any harder than enforcing a 50-person maximum. 
  Moreover,  even  if  the  State’s  special  regulatory  power 
over casinos could justify different rules for those facilities, 
the State would still have no explanation why facilities like