Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 1

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

1 

Per Curiam 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20A151 
_________________ 

RITESH TANDON, ET AL. v. GAVIN NEWSOM, 
GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

[April 9, 2021] 

  PER CURIAM. 
  The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE 
KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted pending 
disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Ap-
peals  for the  Ninth  Circuit  and disposition  of the  petition 
for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought.  Should 
the  petition  for  a  writ  of  certiorari  be  denied,  this  order 
shall terminate automatically.  In the event the petition for 
a  writ  of  certiorari  is  granted,  the  order  shall  terminate 
upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. 

* 

  * 

  * 
  The Ninth Circuit’s failure to grant an injunction pending 
appeal  was  erroneous.    This  Court’s  decisions  have  made 
the following points clear. 
  First, government regulations are not neutral and gener-
ally applicable, and therefore trigger strict scrutiny under 
the Free Exercise Clause, whenever they treat any compa-
rable  secular  activity  more  favorably  than  religious  exer-
cise.    Roman  Catholic  Diocese  of  Brooklyn  v.  Cuomo,  592 
U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (per curiam) (slip op., at 3–4).  It 
is no answer that a State treats some comparable secular 
businesses  or  other  activities  as  poorly  as  or  even  less fa-
vorably than the religious exercise at issue.  Id., at ___–___ 
(KAVANAUGH, J., concurring) (slip op., at 2–3).