Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

Statement of GORSUCH, J. 

identify laws that fail strict scrutiny.  See, e.g., First Nat. 
Bank  of  Boston  v.  Bellotti,  435 U. S.  765,  793 (1978)  (The 
State’s proffered “purpose is belied, however, by the provi-
sions  of  the  statute,  which  are  both  underinclusive  and 
overinclusive.”). 
  Consider California’s arguments in turn.  The State pre-
sumes that worship inherently involves a large number of 
people.  Never mind that scores might pack into train sta-
tions  or  wait  in  long  checkout  lines  in  the  businesses  the 
State allows to remain open.   Never mind, too, that some 
worshippers may seek only to pray in solitude, go to confes-
sion, or study in small groups.  See Harvest Rock Church, 
Inc. v. Newsom, App. to Emergency Application for Writ of 
Injunction,  No.  20A137,  Exh.  A,  No.  20–56357,  p. 4,  n. 1 
(CA9, Jan. 25, 2021) (O’Scannlain, J., specially concurring).  
Nor does California explain why the less restrictive option 
of  limiting  the  number  of  people  who  may  gather  at  one 
time is insufficient for houses of worship, even though it has 
found  that  answer  adequate  for  so  many  stores  and  busi-
nesses. 
  Next, the State tells us that worshippers are sure to seek 
close  physical  interactions.    It  touts  its  mild  climate,  too, 
suggesting  that  worshippers  might  enjoy  more  space  out-
doors.    Yet,  California  is  not  as  concerned  with  the  close 
physical  proximity  of  hairstylists  or  manicurists  to  their 
customers, whom they touch and remain near for extended 
periods.  The State does not force them or retailers to do all 
their  business  in  parking  lots  and  parks.    And  California 
allows  people  to  sit  in  relatively  close  proximity  inside 
buses too.  Nor, again, does California explain why the nar-
rower options it thinks adequate in many secular settings—
such  as  social  distancing  requirements,  masks,  cleaning, 
plexiglass barriers, and the like—cannot suffice here.  Es-
pecially when those measures are in routine use in religious 
services across the country today. 
  California  worries  that  worship  brings  people  together