Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 91.0

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

69 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

4 
Identifying  appropriate  comparators.  To  determine 
whether a law provides equal treatment for secular and re-
ligious conduct, two steps are required.  First, a court must 
identify the secular conduct  with  which the religious con-
duct is to be compared.  Second, the court must determine 
whether the State’s reasons for regulating the religious con-
duct  apply  with  equal  force  to  the  secular  conduct  with 
which it is compared.  See Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 543.  In 
Smith,  this  inquiry  undoubtedly  seemed  straightforward:
The secular conduct and the religious conduct prohibited by
the Oregon criminal statute were identical.  But things are
not always that simple.

Cases  involving  rules  designed  to  slow  the  spread  of 
COVID–19  have  driven  that  point  home.    State  and  local 
rules adopted for this purpose have typically imposed dif-
ferent  restrictions  for  different  categories  of  activities.
Sometimes religious services have been placed in a category
with certain secular activities, and sometimes religious ser-
vices have been given a separate category of their own.  To 
determine  whether  COVID–19  rules  provided  neutral 
treatment for religious and secular conduct, it has been nec-
essary to compare the restrictions on religious services with 
the restrictions on secular activities that present a compa-
rable risk of spreading the virus, and identifying the secu-
lar activities that should be used for comparison has been
hotly contested.

In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 
U. S.  ___  (2020),  where  the  Court  refused  to  enjoin  re-
strictions  on  religious  services,  THE  CHIEF JUSTICE’s  con-
currence  likened  religious  services  to  lectures,  concerts, 
movies, sports events, and theatrical performances.  Id., at 
___ (slip op., at 2).  The dissenters, on the other hand, fo-
cused  on  “supermarkets,  restaurants,  factories,  and  of-
fices.”  Id.,  at  ___  (opinion  of  KAVANAUGH,  J.,  joined  by
THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ.) (slip op., at 3).