Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 20

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2020) 

1 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20A87 
_________________ 

ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, 
NEW YORK v. ANDREW M. CUOMO, 
GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK 

ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

[November 25, 2020]

 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, dissenting. 
I would not grant injunctive relief under the present cir-
cumstances.  There  is  simply  no  need  to  do  so.    After  the 
Diocese  and  Agudath  Israel  filed  their  applications,  the
Governor  revised  the  designations  of  the  affected  areas.
None of the houses of worship identified in the applications 
is now subject to any fixed numerical restrictions.  At these 
locations, the applicants can hold services with up to 50% 
of capacity, which is at least as favorable as the relief they
currently seek. 

Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending 
on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive.  And it 
may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise 
Clause.  It is not necessary, however, for us to rule on that
serious  and  difficult  question  at  this  time.    The  Governor 
might  reinstate  the  restrictions.   But  he  also  might  not.
And  it  is  a  significant  matter  to  override  determinations 
made  by  public  health  officials  concerning  what  is  neces-
sary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic.  If 
the Governor does reinstate the numerical restrictions the 
applicants  can  return  to  this  Court,  and  we  could  act 
quickly  on  their  renewed  applications.  As  things  now
stand, however, the applicants have not demonstrated their 
entitlement  to  “the  extraordinary  remedy  of  injunction.”