Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 3

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

Per Curiam 

as neutral because they single out houses of worship for es-
pecially harsh treatment.1 

In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit 
more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” 
may  admit  as  many  people  as  they  wish.    And  the  list  of 
“essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture 
facilities,  camp  grounds,  garages,  as  well  as  many  whose 
services are not limited to those that can be regarded as es-
sential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and mi-
croelectronics  and  all  transportation  facilities.    See  New 
York  State,  Empire  State  Development,  Guidance  for  De-
termining  Whether  a  Business  Enterprise  is  Subject  to  a 
Workforce  Reduction  Under  Recent  Executive  Orders, 
https://esd.ny.gov/guidance-executive-order-2026.  The dis-
parate treatment is even more striking in an orange zone.
While attendance at houses of worship is limited to 25 per-
sons,  even  non-essential  businesses  may  decide  for  them-
selves how many persons to admit. 

These  categorizations  lead  to  troubling  results.    At  the 
hearing in the District Court, a health department official 
testified about a large store in Brooklyn that could “literally 
have hundreds of people shopping there on any given day.” 
App.  to  Application  in  No.  20A87,  Exh.  D,  p.  83.  Yet  a 
nearby  church  or  synagogue  would  be  prohibited  from  al-
lowing more than 10 or 25 people inside for a worship ser-
vice.  And  the  Governor  has  stated  that  factories  and 
schools  have  contributed  to  the  spread  of  COVID–19,  id., 
Exh. H, at 3; App. to Application in No. 20A90, pp. 98, 100, 
but  they  are  treated  less  harshly  than  the  Diocese’s
churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues, which have ad-
mirable safety records.

Because the challenged restrictions are not “neutral” and 

—————— 

1 Compare Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 29) 

(directive “neutral on its face”).