Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 31

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

3 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

as Amicus Curiae 3–6 (Brief for AMA).  Unlike religious ser-
vices, which “have every one of th[ose] risk factors,” Brief 
for AMA 6, bike repair shops and liquor stores generally do 
not  feature  customers  gathering  inside  to  sing  and  speak 
together for an hour or more at a time.  Id., at 7 (“Epidemi-
ologists and physicians generally agree that religious ser-
vices  are  among  the  riskiest  activities”).  Justices  of  this 
Court  play  a  deadly  game  in  second  guessing  the  expert 
judgment  of  health  officials  about  the  environments  in 
which  a  contagious  virus,  now  infecting  a  million  Ameri-
cans each week, spreads most easily. 

In truth, this case is easier than South Bay and Calvary 
Chapel.  While the state regulations in those cases gener-
ally applied the same rules to houses of worship and secular
institutions where people congregate in large groups, New 
York treats houses of worship far more favorably than their 
secular  comparators.  Compare,  e.g.,  Calvary  Chapel,  591 
U. S.,  at  ___  (KAVANAUGH,  J.,  dissenting)  (slip  op.,  at  8) 
(noting that Nevada subjected movie theaters and houses
of  worship alike  to  a  50-person  cap)  with  App.  to  Brief  in 
Opposition in No. 20A87, p. 53 (requiring movie theaters,
concert venues, and sporting arenas subject to New York’s
regulation to close entirely, but allowing houses of worship
to open subject to capacity restrictions).  And whereas the 
restrictions  in  South  Bay  and  Calvary  Chapel  applied
statewide, New York’s fixed-capacity restrictions apply only
in  specially  designated  areas  experiencing  a  surge  in 
COVID–19 cases. 

The  Diocese  suggests  that,  because  New  York’s  regula-
tion  singles  out  houses  of  worship  by  name,  it  cannot  be 
neutral with respect to the practice of religion.  Application 
22.  Thus,  the  argument  goes,  the  regulation  must,  ipso 
facto, be subject to strict scrutiny.  It is true that New York’s 
policy refers to religion on its face.  But as I have just ex-
plained, that is because the policy singles out religious in-