Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

TANDON v. NEWSOM 

Per Curiam 

  Second,  whether  two  activities  are  comparable  for  pur-
poses of the Free Exercise Clause must be judged against 
the asserted government interest that justifies the regula-
tion at issue.  Id., at ___ (per curiam) (slip op., at 3) (describ-
ing secular activities treated more favorably than religious 
worship  that  either  “have  contributed  to  the  spread  of 
COVID–19” or “could” have presented similar risks).  Com-
parability  is  concerned  with  the  risks  various  activities 
pose,  not  the  reasons  why  people  gather.    Id.,  at  ___ 
(GORSUCH, J., concurring) (slip op., at 2). 
  Third, the government has the burden to establish that 
the challenged law satisfies strict scrutiny.  To do so in this 
context, it must do more than assert that certain risk fac-
tors “are always present in worship, or always absent from 
the  other  secular  activities”  the  government  may  allow.  
South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 592 U. S. 
___, ___ (2021) (statement of GORSUCH, J.) (slip op., at 2); 
id., at ___ (BARRETT, J., concurring) (slip op., at 1).  Instead, 
narrow  tailoring  requires  the  government  to  show  that 
measures less restrictive of the First Amendment activity 
could  not  address  its  interest  in  reducing  the  spread  of 
COVID.  Where the government permits other activities to 
proceed  with  precautions,  it  must  show  that  the  religious 
exercise  at  issue  is  more  dangerous  than  those  activities 
even  when  the  same  precautions  are  applied.  Otherwise, 
precautions that suffice for other activities suffice for reli-
gious  exercise  too.    Roman  Catholic  Diocese, 592  U. S.,  at 
___–___ (slip op., at 4–5); South Bay, 592 U. S., at ___ (state-
ment of GORSUCH, J.) (slip op., at 3). 
  Fourth, even if the government withdraws or modifies a 
COVID restriction in the course of litigation, that does not 
necessarily moot the case.  And so long as a case is not moot, 
litigants  otherwise  entitled  to  emergency  injunctive  relief 
remain entitled to such relief where the applicants “remain 
under a constant threat” that government officials will use 
their power to reinstate the challenged restrictions.  Roman