Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 24

2 

ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN v. CUOMO 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

Kew Garden Hills and its employee and Agudath Israel of 
Madison and its rabbi) brought lawsuits against the Gover-
nor of New York.  They claimed that the fixed-capacity re-
strictions of 10 people in red zones and 25 people in orange 
zones were too strict—to the point where they violated the 
First  Amendment’s  protection  of  the  free  exercise  of  reli-
gion.  Both parties asked a Federal District Court for a pre-
liminary injunction that would prohibit the State from en-
forcing these red and orange zone restrictions.

After receiving evidence and hearing witness testimony, 
the  District  Court  in  the  Diocese’s  case  found  that  New 
York’s  regulations  were  “crafted  based  on  science  and  for
epidemiological purposes.”  ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___, 2020
WL 6120167, *10 (EDNY, Oct. 16, 2020).  It wrote that they 
treated “religious gatherings . . . more favorably than simi-
lar gatherings” with comparable risks, such as “public lec-
tures, concerts or theatrical performances.”  Id., at *9.  The 
court also recognized the Diocese’s argument that the regu-
lations  treated  religious  gatherings  less  favorably  than 
what the State has called “essential businesses,” including,
for example, grocery stores and banks.  Ibid.  But the court 
found these essential businesses to be distinguishable from 
religious services and declined to “second guess the State’s 
judgment about what should qualify as an essential busi-
ness.”  Ibid.  The District Court denied the motion for a pre-
liminary injunction.  The Diocese appealed, and the District 
Court  declined  to  issue  an  emergency  injunction  pending 
that appeal.  The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
also denied the Diocese’s request for an emergency injunc-
tion pending appeal, but it called for expedited briefing and 
scheduled  a  full  hearing  on  December  18  to  address  the 
merits  of  the  appeal. This  Court,  unlike  the  lower  courts,
has now decided to issue an injunction that would prohibit 
the  State  from  enforcing  its  fixed-capacity  restrictions  on 
houses of worship in red and orange zones while the parties
await  the  Second  Circuit’s  decision.  I  cannot  agree  with