Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf
Page Number: 9

6  SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH v. NEWSOM 

Statement of GORSUCH, J. 

entertainment  industry  has  adopted  COVID–19  testing 
protocols.  See ___ F. 3d., at ___, 2021 WL 222814, *13.  But, 
if that’s true, it is unclear why California’s religious insti-
tutions might be denied a similar opportunity.  Rather than 
assume such testing is infeasible, California might have at 
least offered the option, or sought to adapt it to churches.  
In my view, the State must do more to tailor the require-
ments  of  public  health  to  the  rights  of  its  people.    The 
Court’s order today at least allows the applicants to press 
these points on remand. 
  No doubt, California will argue on remand, as it has be-
fore,  that  its  prohibitions  are  merely  temporary  because 
vaccinations  are  underway.    But  the  State’s  “temporary” 
ban on indoor worship has been in place since August 2020, 
and  applied  routinely  since  March.    California  no  longer 
asks its movie studios, malls, and manicurists to wait.  And 
one  could  be  forgiven  for  doubting  its  asserted  timeline.  
Government actors have been moving the goalposts on pan-
demic-related  sacrifices  for  months,  adopting  new  bench-
marks  that  always  seem  to  put  restoration  of  liberty  just 
around the corner.  As this crisis enters its second year—
and  hovers  over  a  second  Lent,  a  second  Passover,  and  a 
second Ramadan—it is too late for the State to defend ex-
treme  measures  with  claims  of  temporary  exigency,  if  it 
ever could.  Drafting narrowly tailored regulations can be 
difficult.  But if Hollywood may host a studio audience or 
film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter 
California’s churches, synagogues, and mosques, something 
has gone seriously awry.