Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 27

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

5 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

a constitutional violation (on which they base their request
for injunctive relief ) is far from clear.  See post, p. 1 (dis-
senting opinion).  (All of these matters could be considered
and  discussed  in  the  ordinary  course  of  proceedings  at  a 
later date.)  At the same time, the public’s serious health
and safety needs, which call for swift government action in 
ever changing circumstances, also mean that it is far from
clear that “the balance of equities tips in [the applicants’] 
favor,” or “that an injunction is in the public interest.”  Win-
ter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 
20 (2008).

Relevant precedent suggests the same.  We have previ-
ously  recognized  that  courts  must  grant  elected  officials 
“broad”  discretion  when  they  “undertake  to  act  in  areas 
fraught  with medical and scientific uncertainties.”  South 
Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___, 
___ (2020) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring) (slip op., at 2) (alter-
ation  omitted).  That  is  because  the  “Constitution  princi-
pally entrusts the safety and the health of the people to the
politically accountable officials of the States.”  Ibid. (altera-
tions and internal quotation marks omitted).  The elected 
branches  of  state  and  national  governments  can  marshal 
scientific expertise and craft specific policies in response to
“changing facts on the ground.”  Id., at 3.  And they can do 
so more quickly than can courts.  That is particularly true
of a court, such as this Court, which does not conduct evi-
dentiary hearings.  It is true even more so where, as here, 
the need for action is immediate, the information likely lim-
ited, the making of exceptions difficult, and the disease-re-
lated circumstances rapidly changing.

I  add  that,  in  my  view,  the  Court  of  Appeals  will,  and
should, act expeditiously. The State of New York will, and 
should, seek ways of appropriately recognizing the religious 
interests here at issue without risking harm to the health 
and safety of the people of New York.  But I see no practical