Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

1 

BARRETT, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20A136 (20–746) 
_________________ 

SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, 
ET AL., v. GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OF 
CALIFORNIA, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

[February 5, 2021] 

  JUSTICE  BARRETT,  with  whom  JUSTICE  KAVANAUGH 
joins, concurring in the partial grant of application for in-
junctive relief. 
  I agree with JUSTICE GORSUCH’s statement, save its con-
tention  that  the  Court  should  enjoin  California’s  prohibi-
tion  on  singing  and chanting during  indoor  services.   The 
applicants bore the burden of establishing their entitlement 
to  relief  from  the  singing  ban.    In  my  view,  they  did  not 
carry that burden—at least not on this record.  As the case 
comes to us, it remains unclear whether the singing ban ap-
plies across the board (and thus constitutes a neutral and 
generally applicable law) or else favors certain sectors (and 
thus triggers more searching review).  Of course, if a chor-
ister can sing in a Hollywood studio but not in her church, 
California’s regulations cannot be viewed as neutral.  But 
the  record  is  uncertain,  and  the  decisions  below  unfortu-
nately  shed  little  light  on  the  issue.    As  the  order  notes, 
however, the applicants remain free to show that the sing-
ing  ban  is  not  generally  applicable  and  to  advance  their 
claim accordingly.