Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19a1070_08l1.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

9 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

C 
  Once  it  is  recognized  that  the  directive’s  treatment  of 
houses of worship must satisfy strict scrutiny, it is apparent 
that this discriminatory treatment cannot survive.  Indeed, 
Nevada  does  not  even  try  to  argue  that  the  directive  can 
withstand strict scrutiny. 
  Having allowed thousands to gather in casinos, the State 
cannot claim to have a compelling interest in limiting reli-
gious gatherings to 50 people—regardless of the size of the 
facility and the measures adopted to prevent the spread of 
the virus.  “[A] law cannot be regarded as protecting an in-
terest  of  the  highest  order  . . .  when  it  leaves  appreciable 
damage  to  that  supposedly  vital  interest  unprohibited.”  
Church  of  Lukumi,  508  U. S.,  at  547  (internal  quotation 
marks omitted).  And even if the 50-person limit served a 
compelling  interest,  the  State  has  not  shown  that  public 
safety could not be protected at least as well by measures 
such as those Calvary Chapel proposes to implement. 

D 
  The State’s primary defense of the directive’s treatment 
of houses of worship is based on two decisions of this Court.  
Quoting  certain  language  in  Jacobson  v.  Massachusetts, 
197 U. S. 11 (1905), Nevada argues that “when a state ex-
ercises  emergency  police  powers  to  enact  an  emergency 
public health measure, courts will uphold it unless (1) there 
is no real or substantial relation to public health, or (2) the 
measures are ‘beyond all question’ a ‘plain[,] palpable [in-
vasion]  of  rights  secured  by  the  fundamental  law.’ ”    Re-
sponse  to  Application  11  (quoting  Jacobson,  197  U. S.,  at 
31). 
  Even under this test, the directive’s discriminatory treat-
ment  would  likely  fail  for  the  reasons  already  explained.  
And in any event, it is a mistake to take language in Jacob-
son as the last word on what the Constitution allows public 
officials to do during the COVID–19 pandemic.  Language