Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a145_gfbi.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

10 

DR. A v. HOCHUL 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 531.  And even accepting for present
purposes that the State can meet the first of these burdens,
it cannot satisfy the second.  Cf. Mills, 595 U. S., at ___–___ 
(opinion of GORSUCH, J.) (slip op., at 6–8). 

Maybe the most telling evidence that New York’s policy 
isn’t  narrowly  tailored  lies  in  how  unique  it  is.    It  seems 
that nearly every other State has found that it can satisfy 
its  COVID–19  public  health  goals  without  coercing  reli-
gious objectors to accept a vaccine.  See Addendum to Ap-
plication for Injunctive Relief.  Nor has New York “offer[ed]
persuasive reasons” why it, almost uniquely, cannot do the 
same.  Holt, 574 U. S., at 369.  To the contrary, as we have
seen, what explanations the Governor has chosen to supply 
undermine rather than advance the State’s case. 

Though this alone is sufficient to show that New York’s
law  is  not  narrowly  tailored,  still  more  proof  exists.    In  a 
similar case, Maine recently argued that it needed a 90% 
vaccination  rate  among  workers  in  each  of  its  healthcare 
facilities to protect against an undue number of COVID–19 
breakout  cases.  Mills,  595  U. S.,  at  ___  (opinion  of 
GORSUCH, J.) (slip op., at 7).  By contrast, in the case before 
us, New York has not even attempted to identify what per-
centage of vaccinated workers it thinks is necessary to pro-
tect  public  health.  And  even  assuming  New  York  could 
prove  it  needed  to  achieve  a  similar  vaccination  rate,  the 
evidence before us shows that employee vaccination rates 
in the State’s healthcare facilities already stand at between 
roughly 90% and 96%.  Brief in Opposition to Application 
for Injunctive Relief 14.  Putting a finer point on it:  New 
York has presented nothing to suggest that accommodating 
the religious objectors before us would make a meaningful
difference to the protection of public health.  The State has 
not even tried. 

Before leaving the subject, one further point bears men-
tion.  As  I  alluded  to  earlier,  if  a  State  could  prove  that
granting or denying religious exemptions would make the