Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a145_gfbi.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2021) 

9 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

seek a religious exemption than a medical exemption.  But 
this Court’s general applicability test doesn’t turn on that 
kind of numbers game.  At this point in the proceedings, the
only question is whether the challenged law contains an ex-
emption for a secular objector that “undermines the govern-
ment’s  asserted  interests  in  a  similar  way”  an  exemption 
for a religious objector might.  Fulton, 593 U. S., at ___ (slip 
op., at 6).  Laws operate on individuals; rights belong to in-
dividuals.  And the relevant question here involves a one-
to-one  comparison  between  the  individual  seeking  a  reli-
gious exemption and one benefiting from a secular exemp-
tion.  See, e.g., Tandon v. Newsom, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) 
(per curiam) (slip op., at 1) (comparing the relevant secular 
exemptions to “the religious exercise at issue”).

If the estimated number of those who might seek differ-
ent exemptions is relevant, it comes only later in the pro-
ceedings when we turn to the application of strict scrutiny.
See  Holt  v.  Hobbs,  574  U. S.  352,  368  (2015)  (considering 
sizes  of  different  groups  seeking  exemptions).    At  that 
stage, a State might argue, for example, that it has a com-
pelling interest in achieving herd immunity against certain
diseases in a population.  It might further contend the most
narrowly  tailored  means  to  achieve  that  interest  is  to  re-
strict vaccine exemptions to a particular number divided in
a nondiscriminatory manner between medical and religious
objectors.  With  sufficient  evidence  to  support  claims  like 
these,  the  State  might  prevail.  See  infra,  at  10–11.  But 
none  of  that  bears  on  the  preliminary  question  whether
such a mandate is generally applicable or whether it treats
a religious person less favorably than a secular counterpart. 

C 
Failing either the neutrality or general applicability test 
is enough to trigger strict scrutiny and impose on New York 
the burden of showing that its law serves a compelling in-
terest and employs the least restrictive means of doing so.