Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19a1070_08l1.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

9 

KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting 

that decision.  To reiterate, the State has substantial room 
to draw lines, especially in an emergency or crisis.  But Ne-
vada has not demonstrated that public health justifies tak-
ing a looser approach with restaurants, bars, casinos, and 
gyms and a stricter approach with places of worship. 
  Second  is  the  State’s  economic  rationale.    The  State 
wants to jump-start business activity and preserve the eco-
nomic well-being of its citizens.  The State has loosened re-
strictions  on  restaurants,  bars,  casinos,  and  gyms  in  part 
because many Nevada jobs and livelihoods, as well as other 
connected Nevada businesses, depend on those restaurants, 
bars, casinos, and gyms being open and busy.  It is under-
standable  for  the  State  to  balance  public  health  concerns 
against individual economic hardship.  Almost every State 
and  municipality  in  America  is  struggling  with  that  bal-
ance.    After  all,  if  preventing  transmission  of  COVID–19 
were the sole concern, a State would presumably order al-
most  all  of  its  businesses  to  stay  closed  indefinitely.    But 
the economic devastation and the economic, physical, intel-
lectual, and psychological harm to families and individuals 
that would ensue (and has already ensued, to some extent) 
requires States to make tradeoffs that can be unpleasant to 
openly discuss.   
  With  respect  to  those  tradeoffs,  however,  no  precedent 
suggests  that  a  State  may  discriminate  against  religion 
simply because a religious organization does not generate 
the economic benefits that a restaurant, bar, casino, or gym 
might provide.  Nevada’s rules reflect an implicit judgment 
that for-profit assemblies are important and religious gath-
erings  are  less  so;  that  moneymaking  is  more  important 
than faith during the pandemic.  But that rationale “deval-
ues religious reasons” for congregating “by judging them to 
be of lesser import than nonreligious reasons,” in violation 
of the  Constitution.   Lukumi,  508  U. S.,  at 537–538.   The 
Constitution does not tolerate discrimination against reli-
gion merely because religious services do not yield a profit.