Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a145_gfbi.pdf
Page Number: 14

14 

DR. A v. HOCHUL 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

Roman  Catholic  Diocese,  592  U. S.,  at  ___  (GORSUCH,  J., 
concurring) (slip op., at 5).  But as days gave way to weeks
and weeks to months, this Court came to recognize that the 
Constitution is not to be put away in challenging times, and 
we  stopped  tolerating  discrimination  against  religious ex-
ercises.  Tandon, 593 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1).  Finally, 
churches and synagogues and mosques reopened on equal 
footing with secular institutions. 

Still, it seems the old lessons are hard ones.  Six weeks 
ago,  this  Court  refused  relief  in  a  case  involving  Maine’s 
healthcare workers.  Mills, 595 U. S. ___.  Today, the Court
repeats  the  mistake  by  turning  away  New  York’s  doctors
and nurses.  We do all this even though the State’s execu-
tive decree clearly interferes with the free exercise of reli-
gion—and  does so seemingly based on nothing more than 
fear and anger at those who harbor unpopular religious be-
liefs.  We allow the State to insist on the dismissal of thou-
sands of medical workers—the very same individuals New 
York has depended on and praised for their service on the 
pandemic’s front lines over the last 21 months.  To add in-
sult to injury, we allow the State to deny these individuals
unemployment benefits too.  One can only hope today’s rul-
ing will not be the final chapter in this grim story.  Cases 
like  this  one  may  serve  as  cautionary  tales  for  those  who
follow.  But how many more reminders do we need that “the
Constitution is not to be obeyed or disobeyed as the circum-
stances of a particular crisis . . . may suggest”?  Downes v. 
Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 384 (1901) (Harlan, J., dissenting).