Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 5

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

1 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

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] 

  JUSTICE  KAGAN,  with  whom  JUSTICE  BREYER  and 
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting. 
  I  would  deny  the  application  largely  for  the  reasons 
stated in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 
592  U. S.  ___  (2021)  (KAGAN,  J.,  dissenting).    The  First 
Amendment requires that a State treat religious conduct as 
well as the State treats comparable secular conduct.  Some-
times  finding  the  right  secular  analogue  may  raise  hard 
questions.  But not today.  California limits religious gath-
erings in homes to three households.  If the State also limits 
all secular gatherings in homes to three households, it has 
complied  with  the  First  Amendment.    And  the  State does 
exactly  that:  It  has  adopted  a  blanket  restriction  on  at-
home  gatherings  of  all  kinds,  religious  and  secular  alike.  
California need not, as the per curiam insists, treat at-home 
religious gatherings the same as hardware stores and hair 
salons—and  thus  unlike  at-home  secular  gatherings,  the 
obvious comparator here.  As the per curiam’s reliance on 
separate opinions  and unreasoned  orders  signals,  the  law 
does not require that the State equally treat apples and wa-
termelons. 
  And  even  supposing  a  court  should  cast  so  expansive  a 
comparative net, the per curiam’s analysis of this case de-
fies  the  factual  record.    According  to  the  per  curiam,  “the 
Ninth Circuit did not conclude that” activities like frequent-
ing stores or salons “pose a lesser risk of transmission” than