Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2020) 

5 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

survived  rational  basis  review,  and  might  even  have  sur-
vived strict scrutiny, given the opt-outs available to certain 
objectors.  Id.,  at  36,  38–39.  Here,  by  contrast,  the  State
has  effectively  sought  to  ban  all  traditional  forms  of  wor-
ship in affected “zones” whenever the Governor decrees and 
for as long as he chooses.  Nothing in Jacobson purported
to address, let alone approve, such serious and long-lasting 
intrusions into settled constitutional rights.  In fact, Jacob-
son  explained  that  the  challenged  law  survived  only  be-
cause it did not “contravene the Constitution of the United 
States” or “infringe any right granted or secured by that in-
strument.”  Id., at 25. 

Tellingly  no  Justice  now  disputes  any  of  these  points. 
Nor  does  any  Justice  seek  to  explain  why  anything  other 
than our usual constitutional standards should apply dur-
ing the current pandemic.  In fact, today the author of the 
South Bay concurrence even downplays the relevance of Ja-
cobson for cases like the one before us.  Post, at 2 (opinion
of  ROBERTS,  C. J.).    All  this  is  surely  a  welcome  develop-
ment.  But it would require a serious rewriting of history to 
suggest,  as  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE  does,  that  the  South  Bay 
concurrence  never  really  relied  in  significant  measure  on 
Jacobson.  That was the first case South Bay cited on the 
substantive legal question before the Court, it was the only 
case  cited  involving  a  pandemic,  and  many  lower  courts
quite understandably read its invocation as inviting them
to  slacken  their  enforcement  of  constitutional  liberties 
while COVID lingers.  See, e.g., Elim Romanian Pentecostal 
Church v. Pritzker, 962 F. 3d 341, 347 (CA7 2020); Legacy 
Church, Inc. v. Kunkel, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___ (NM 2020).
Why have some mistaken this Court’s modest decision in 
Jacobson  for  a  towering  authority  that  overshadows  the 
Constitution during a pandemic?  In the end, I can only sur-
mise that much of the answer lies in a particular judicial 
impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis.  But if that 
impulse may be understandable or even admirable in other