Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

3 

Per Curiam 

Catholic Diocese, 592 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6); see also 
High Plains Harvest Church v. Polis, 592 U. S. ___ (2020). 
  These  principles  dictated  the  outcome  in  this  case,  as 
they did in Gateway City Church v. Newsom, 592 U. S. ___ 
(2021).  First, California treats some comparable secular ac-
tivities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, per-
mitting  hair  salons,  retail  stores,  personal  care  services, 
movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and con-
certs, and indoor restaurants to bring together more than 
three households at a time.  App. to Emergency Application 
for Writ of Injunction 183–189.  Second, the Ninth Circuit 
did  not conclude  that those  activities  pose  a  lesser  risk of 
transmission  than  applicants’  proposed  religious  exercise 
at home.  The Ninth Circuit erroneously rejected these com-
parators simply because this Court’s previous decisions in-
volved  public  buildings  as  opposed  to  private  buildings.  
Tandon  v.  Newsom,  ___  F. 3d  ___,  ___,  ___–___,  2021  WL 
1185157, *3, *5–*6 (CA9 2021).  Third, instead of requiring 
the State to explain why it could not safely permit at-home 
worshipers to gather in larger numbers while using precau-
tions  used  in  secular  activities,  the  Ninth  Circuit  errone-
ously  declared  that  such  measures  might  not  “translate 
readily” to the home.  Id., at *8.  The State cannot “assume 
the worst when people go to worship but assume the best 
when people go to work.”  Roberts v. Neace, 958 F. 3d 409, 
414 (CA6 2020) (per curiam).  And fourth, although Califor-
nia officials changed the challenged policy shortly after this 
application  was  filed,  the  previous  restrictions  remain  in 
place  until  April  15th, and officials  with  a  track  record  of 
“moving the goalposts” retain authority to reinstate those 
heightened restrictions at any time.  South Bay, 592 U. S., 
at ___ (statement of GORSUCH, J.) (slip op., at 6). 
  Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their free 
exercise claim; they are irreparably harmed by the loss of 
free exercise rights “for even minimal periods of time”; and