Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19a1070_08l1.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

7 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

bowling alleys, arcades, and fitness centers are also given 
the benefit of the 50% rule.  And while the State suggests 
that it strictly enforces the rules applicable to casinos, pho-
tos and videos taken in casinos after they were allowed to 
reopen show widespread and blatant safety violations.  Pa-
trons  without  masks  are  seen  at  close  quarters,  and  the 
State has not brought to our attention any evidence that it 
has  cracked  down  on  non-complying  casinos.    The  sharp 
spike in COVID–19 cases since the casinos reopened belies 
the State’s strict enforcement claims. 
  While  the  directive’s  treatment  of  casinos  stands  out, 
other  facilities  are  also  given  more  favorable  treatment 
than  houses of worship.    Take the  example of bowling  al-
leys.    Some  Las  Vegas  bowling  alleys  where  tournaments 
are held can seat hundreds of spectators, and under the di-
rective,  these  facilities  may  admit  up  to  50%  of  capacity.  
Not only that, the State tolerates seating arrangements at 
these facilities that pose far more danger than the plan Cal-
vary Chapel proposes.  An official state guidance document 
states that groups of up to 50 people may sit together in the 
grandstands of a bowling alley provided that they maintain 
social distancing from other groups.  ECF Doc. 38–5, p. 9.  
Thus,  while  Calvary  Chapel  cannot  admit  more  than  50 
congregants even if families sit six feet apart, spectators at 
a bowling tournament can sit together in groups of 50 pro-
vided  that  each  group  maintains  social  distancing  from 
other groups. 
  In  sum,  the  directive  blatantly  discriminates  against 
houses of worship and thus warrants strict scrutiny under 
the Free Exercise Clause. 

B 
  The  directive  fares  no  better  under  the  Free  Speech 
Clause.  Laws that restrict speech based on the viewpoint 
it  expresses  are  presumptively  unconstitutional,  see,  e.g., 
Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2019) (slip op., at