Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

2 

ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN v. CUOMO 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

At the same time, the Governor has chosen to impose no 
capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “es-
sential.”  And it turns out the businesses the Governor con-
siders  essential  include  hardware  stores,  acupuncturists, 
and  liquor  stores.  Bicycle  repair  shops,  certain  signage 
companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are 
all essential too.  So, at least according to the Governor, it
may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick
up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the 
afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians.  Who 
knew  public  health  would  so  perfectly  align  with  secular 
convenience? 

As almost everyone on the Court today recognizes, squar-
ing the Governor’s edicts with our traditional First Amend-
ment rules is no easy task.  People may gather inside for
extended periods in bus stations and airports, in laundro-
mats and banks, in hardware stores and liquor shops.  No 
apparent reason exists why people may not gather, subject 
to  identical  restrictions,  in  churches  or  synagogues,  espe-
cially when religious institutions have made plain that they
stand ready, able, and willing to follow all the safety pre-
cautions  required  of  “essential”  businesses  and  perhaps
more besides.  The only explanation for treating religious 
places  differently  seems  to  be  a  judgment  that  what  hap-
pens there just isn’t as “essential” as what happens in sec-
ular  spaces.  Indeed,  the  Governor  is  remarkably  frank 
about this:  In his judgment laundry and liquor, travel and 
tools, are all “essential” while traditional religious exercises 
are not.  That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First
Amendment forbids. 

Nor  is  the  problem  an  isolated  one.    In  recent  months, 
certain other Governors have issued similar edicts.  At the 
flick of a pen, they have asserted the right to privilege res-
taurants,  marijuana  dispensaries,  and  casinos  over 
churches, mosques, and temples.  See Calvary Chapel Day-
ton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (GORSUCH,