Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

2 

TANDON v. NEWSOM 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

applicants’  at-home  religious  activities.    Ante,  at  3.    But 
Judges Milan Smith and Bade explained for the court that 
those  activities do  pose  lesser risks for  at  least  three  rea-
sons.  First, “when people gather in social settings, their in-
teractions  are  likely  to be  longer than  they would  be  in  a 
commercial setting,” with participants “more likely to be in-
volved in prolonged conversations.”  Tandon v. Newsom, ___ 
F. 3d ___, ___, 2021 WL 1185157, *7 (CA9, Mar. 30, 2021).  
Second, “private houses are typically smaller and less ven-
tilated than commercial establishments.”  Ibid.  And third, 
“social distancing and mask-wearing are less likely in pri-
vate  settings  and  enforcement  is  more  difficult.”    Ibid.  
These  are  not  the  mere  musings  of  two  appellate  judges: 
The district court found each of these facts based on the un-
contested  testimony  of  California’s  public-health  experts.  
Tandon  v.  Newsom,  ___  F.  Supp.  3d  ___,  ___,  2021  WL 
411375, *30 (ND Cal., Feb. 5, 2021); see Tandon, ___ F. 3d, 
at ___, 2021 WL 1185157, *7 (noting that the applicants “do 
not dispute any of these findings”).  No doubt this evidence 
is inconvenient for the per curiam’s preferred result.  But 
the Court has no warrant to ignore the record in a case that 
(on its own view, see ante, at 2) turns on risk assessments.   
  In  ordering  California  to  weaken  its  restrictions  on  at-
home gatherings, the majority yet again “insists on treating 
unlike cases, not like ones, equivalently.”  South Bay, 592 
U. S., at ___ (KAGAN, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 5).  And it 
once more commands California “to ignore its experts’ sci-
entific  findings,”  thus  impairing  “the  State’s  effort  to  ad-
dress a public health emergency.”  Ibid.  Because the ma-
jority  continues  to  disregard  law  and  facts  alike,  I 
respectfully dissent from this latest per curiam decision.