Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

1 

Statement of GORSUCH, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20A136 (20–746) 
_________________ 

SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, 
ET AL., v. GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OF 
CALIFORNIA, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

[February 5, 2021]

  Statement  of  JUSTICE  GORSUCH,  with  whom  JUSTICE 
THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join. 
  Often, courts addressing First Amendment free exercise 
challenges face difficult questions about whether a law re-
flects “ ‘subtle departures from neutrality,’ ” “ ‘religious ger-
rymander[ing],’ ”  or  “impermissible  targeting”  of  religion.  
Church  of  Lukumi  Babalu  Aye,  Inc.  v.  Hialeah,  508  U. S. 
520,  534–535  (1993).    But  not  here.    Since  the  arrival  of 
COVID–19, California has openly imposed more stringent 
regulations  on  religious  institutions  than  on  many  busi-
nesses.  The State’s spreadsheet summarizing its pandemic 
rules  even  assigns  places  of  worship  their  own  row.    See 
App. to Emergency Application for Writ of Injunction, App. 
G–3.  At “Tier 1,” applicable today in most of the State, Cal-
ifornia forbids any kind of indoor worship.  Meanwhile, the 
State allows most retail operations to proceed indoors with 
25% occupancy, and other businesses to operate at 50% oc-
cupancy or more.  See ibid; see also ___ F. 3d ___, 2021 WL 
222814, App. A (CA9, Jan. 22, 2021).  Apparently, Califor-
nia is the only State in the country that has gone so far as 
to  ban  all  indoor  religious  services.    See  Brief  for  Becket 
Fund for Religious Liberty as Amicus Curiae, 5–6. 
  When a State so obviously targets religion for differential 
treatment, our job becomes that much clearer.  As the Ninth 
Circuit recognized, regulations like these violate the First