Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf
Page Number: 15

6  SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH v. NEWSOM 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well. 
  And who knows what today’s decision will mean for other 
restrictions  challenged  in  other  cases?    The  Court’s  order 
exempts churches only from California’s indoor ban, leaving 
its capacity restrictions in place (at least for now).  That is 
all  to  the  good:  The  injunction  stops  short  of  giving  the 
churches all their requested relief.  But the scope of the or-
der  raises  questions.    When  are  such  capacity  limits  per-
missible,  and  when  are  they  not?    And  is  an  indoor  ban 
never allowed, or just not in this case?  Most important—do 
the answers to those questions or similar ones turn on rec-
ord  evidence  about  epidemiology,  or  on  naked  judicial  in-
stinct?    The  Court’s  decision  leaves  state  policymakers 
adrift, in California and elsewhere.  It is difficult enough in 
a  predictable  legal  environment  to  craft  COVID  policies 
that keep communities safe.  That task becomes harder still 
when officials must guess which restrictions this Court will 
choose to strike down.  The Court injects uncertainty into 
an area where uncertainty has human costs. 
  All  this  from  unelected  actors,  “not  accountable  to  the 
people.”  South Bay, 590 U. S., at ___ (ROBERTS, C. J., con-
curring)  (slip  op.,  at  2).    I  fervently  hope  that  the  Court’s 
intervention  will  not  worsen  the  Nation’s  COVID  crisis.  
But if this decision causes suffering, we will not pay.  Our 
marble halls are now closed to the public, and our life ten-
ure forever insulates us from responsibility for our errors.  
That would seem good reason to avoid disrupting a State’s 
pandemic response.  But the Court forges ahead regardless, 
insisting that science-based policy yield to judicial edict.  I 
respectfully dissent.