Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf
Page Number: 8

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

5 

Statement of GORSUCH, J. 

what it first appears.  It seems California’s powerful enter-
tainment industry has won an exemption.2  So, once more, 
we appear to have a State playing favorites during a pan-
demic, expending considerable effort to protect lucrative in-
dustries  (casinos  in  Nevada;  movie  studios  in  California) 
while denying similar largesse to its faithful.  See, e.g., Cal-
vary  Chapel  Dayton  Valley  v.  Sisolak,  591  U. S.  ___,  ___ 
2020)  (GORSUCH,  J.,  dissenting  from  denial  of  application 
for injunction relief ). 
  Once more, too, the State has not explained how a total 
ban  on  religious  singing  is  narrowly  tailored  to  its  legiti-
mate  public  health  concerns.    Even  if  a  full  congregation 
singing hymns is too risky, California does not explain why 
even a single masked cantor cannot lead worship behind a 
mask and a plexiglass shield.  Or why even a lone muezzin 
may not sing the call to prayer from a remote location inside 
a mosque as worshippers file in.  The Ninth Circuit sought 
to defend California’s uneven regime by observing that the 
—————— 

2 There is some confusion over what rules actually apply to Hollywood 
but I would not allow the government officials who created California’s 
complex regime to benefit from its confusing nature.  The district court 
did not address the singing ban, and the Ninth Circuit applied rational-
basis  review  because  it  was not  convinced  that  anyone  is  permitted  to 
sing indoors in California.  ___ F. 3d., ___, 2021 WL 222814, *18 (CA9, 
Jan. 22, 2021).  But the record suggests that music, film, and television 
studios are permitted to sing indoors.  See Record in No. 20–56358, Doc. 
18–4, p. 124 (CA9) (decl. of Screen Actors Guild General Counsel) (“Sing-
ing  in  larger  groups  [inside  the  studio]  is  permitted  but  only  . . .  with 
additional protections.”).  California’s most recent edict prohibits singing 
at “private” “social situations” as well as “activities protected by the First 
Amendment to the extent they are not already permitted by other guid-
ance.”  California Dept. of Public Health, Guidance for the Prevention of 
COVID–19  Transmission  for  Gatherings  (updated  Nov.  13,  2020).    No 
one seems to know exactly how far this language stretches, but it seems 
unlikely to apply to the entertainment industry, which has its own gov-
erning guidance.  And California does not squarely deny as much here.  
See  Brief  in  Opposition  51–52,  and  n. 52.    As  the  Court  recognizes, 
though, nothing in today’s order precludes future relief on this claim ei-
ther.