Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19a1070_08l1.pdf
Page Number: 23

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

11 

KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting 

v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___ (2020).  There, the Court consid-
ered a California limitation on crowd size at religious ser-
vices.    California  treated  religious  organizations  better 
than  some  secular  organizations,  like  movie  theaters,  but 
worse  than  other  secular  organizations,  such  as  restau-
rants, supermarkets, retail stores, pharmacies, hair salons, 
offices, factories, and the like.  In my view, the State of Cal-
ifornia’s  explanation,  at  least  on  that  record,  did  not  per-
suasively distinguish religious services from several of the 
favored secular organizations, particularly restaurants and 
supermarkets.    But  the  Court  ultimately  denied  the 
church’s request for an emergency injunction.  In his con-
currence,  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE  appropriately  emphasized 
both the high standard for obtaining injunctive relief in this 
Court and the ongoing and rapidly changing public health 
emergency.  THE CHIEF JUSTICE also noted that the favored 
secular activities did not involve people who “congregate in 
large groups” or “remain in close proximity for extended pe-
riods.”  Id., at ___ (opinion concurring in denial of applica-
tion for injunctive relief) (slip op., at 2). 
  I  continue  to  think  that  the  restaurants  and supermar-
kets at issue in South Bay (and especially the restaurants) 
pose similar health risks to socially distanced religious ser-
vices in terms of proximity to others and duration of visit.  
I suspect that many who have frequented all three kinds of 
establishments  in  recent  weeks  and  months  would  agree.  
So I continue to respectfully disagree with South Bay. 
  But accepting South Bay as a precedent, this case is much 
different because it involves bars, casinos, and gyms.  Ne-
vada’s COVID–19-based health distinction between (i) bars, 
casinos,  and  gyms  on  the  one  hand,  and (ii)  religious ser-
vices on the other hand, defies common sense.  As I see it, 
the State cannot plausibly maintain that those large secu-
lar  businesses  are  categorically  safer  than  religious  ser-
vices, or that only religious services—and not bars, casinos,