Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

1 

KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19A1044 
_________________ 
SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, ET AL. 
v. GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OF 
CALIFORNIA, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

[May 29, 2020]

  JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and 
JUSTICE GORSUCH  join,  dissenting  from  denial  of  applica-
tion for injunctive relief. 
  I would grant the Church’s requested temporary injunc-
tion  because  California’s  latest safety  guidelines  discrimi-
nate against places of worship and in favor of comparable 
secular businesses.  Such discrimination violates the First 
Amendment. 
  In response to the COVID–19 health crisis, California has 
now limited attendance at religious worship services to 25% 
of  building  capacity  or 100  attendees, whichever  is lower.  
The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular 
businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, includ-
ing  factories,  offices,  supermarkets,  restaurants,  retail 
stores,  pharmacies,  shopping  malls,  pet  grooming  shops, 
bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries. 
  South  Bay  United  Pentecostal  Church  has  applied  for 
temporary  injunctive  relief  from  California’s  25%  occu-
pancy cap on religious worship services.  Importantly, the 
Church is willing to abide by the State’s rules that apply to 
comparable secular businesses, including the rules regard-
ing social distancing and hygiene.  But the Church objects 
to a 25% occupancy cap that is imposed on religious worship 
services but not imposed on those comparable secular busi-
nesses.