Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19a1070_08l1.pdf
Page Number: 13

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

1 

KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19A1070 
_________________ 

CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY v. STEVE 
SISOLAK, GOVERNOR OF NEVADA, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

[July 24, 2020] 

  JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, dissenting from denial of applica-
tion for injunctive relief. 
  I join JUSTICE ALITO’s dissent in full and respectfully add 
these further comments. 
  Under its current reopening plan, Nevada allows restau-
rants,  bars,  casinos,  and  gyms  to  grant  entrance  to  up  to 
50%  of  their  total  occupancy  limit—no  matter  how  many 
people that may be.  For example, a casino with a 500-per-
son  occupancy  limit  may  let  in  up to  250  people.    By  con-
trast, places of worship may only take in a maximum of 50 
people, without exception, regardless of the occupancy cap.  
So  unlike  a  casino  next  door,  a  church  with  a  500-person 
occupancy limit may let in only 50 people, not 250 people.  
Nevada has offered no persuasive justification for that overt 
discrimination  against  places  of  worship.    The  risk  of 
COVID–19 transmission is at least as high at restaurants, 
bars, casinos, and gyms as it is at religious services.  Indeed, 
people congregating in restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms 
often linger at least as long as they do at religious services.  
And  given  the  safety  measures  that  Calvary  Chapel  and 
other places of worship are following—including social dis-
tancing,  mask  wearing,  and  certain  additional  voluntary 
measures—it is evident that people interact with others at 
restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms at least as closely as 
they do at religious services.   
  In  my  view,  Nevada’s  discrimination  against  religious