Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

2  SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH v. NEWSOM 

Statement of GORSUCH, J. 

Amendment  unless  the  State  can  show  they  are  the  least 
restrictive means of achieving a compelling government in-
terest.  ___ F. 3d, at ___, 2021 WL 222814, *9. 
  In cases implicating this form of “strict scrutiny,” courts 
nearly  always  face  an  individual’s  claim  of  constitutional 
right  pitted  against  the  government’s  claim  of  special  ex-
pertise  in  a  matter  of  high  importance  involving  public 
health or safety.  It has never been enough for the State to 
insist  on  deference  or  demand  that  individual  rights  give 
way to collective interests.  Of course we are not scientists, 
but neither may we abandon the field when government of-
ficials with experts in tow seek to infringe a constitutionally 
protected  liberty.    The  whole  point  of  strict  scrutiny  is  to 
test the government’s assertions, and our precedents make 
plain that it has always been a demanding and rarely sat-
isfied  standard.    See  Lukumi,  508  U. S.,  at  546.    Even  in 
times  of  crisis—perhaps  especially  in  times  of  crisis—we 
have a duty to hold governments to the Constitution. 
  Still, California says it can thread the needle.  It insists 
that religious worship is so different that it demands espe-
cially onerous regulation.  The State offers essentially four 
reasons  why:  It  says  that  religious  exercises  involve  (1) 
large numbers of people mixing from different households; 
(2) in close physical proximity; (3) for extended periods; (4) 
with singing. 
  No one before us disputes that factors like these may in-
crease the risk of transmitting COVID–19.  And no one need 
doubt that the State has a compelling interest in reducing 
that risk.  This Court certainly is not downplaying the suf-
fering many have experienced in this pandemic.  But Cali-
fornia errs to the extent it suggests its four factors are al-
ways present in worship, or always absent from the other 
secular activities its regulations allow.  Nor has California 
sought to explain why it cannot address its legitimate con-
cerns  with  rules  short  of  a  total  ban.    Each  of  the  State’s 
shortcomings are telltale signs this Court has long used to