Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN v. CUOMO 

Per Curiam 

entities, contend that these restrictions violate the Free Ex-
ercise Clause of the First Amendment, and they ask us to
enjoin enforcement of the restrictions while they pursue ap-
pellate  review.  Citing  a  variety  of  remarks  made  by  the
Governor, Agudath Israel argues that the Governor specif-
ically targeted the Orthodox Jewish community and gerry-
mandered the boundaries of red and orange zones to ensure
that heavily Orthodox areas were included.  Both the Dio-
cese and Agudath Israel maintain that the regulations treat
houses of worship much more harshly than comparable sec-
ular facilities.  And they tell us without contradiction that 
they  have  complied  with  all  public  health  guidance,  have
implemented additional precautionary measures, and have
operated at 25% or 33% capacity for months without a sin-
gle outbreak. 

The applicants have clearly established their entitlement
to relief pending appellate review.  They have shown that
their  First  Amendment  claims  are  likely  to  prevail,  that
denying  them  relief  would  lead  to  irreparable  injury,  and 
that granting relief would not harm the public interest.  See 
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 
7,  20  (2008).    Because  of  the  need  to  issue  an  order 
promptly, we provide only a brief summary of the reasons 
why immediate relief is essential. 

Likelihood of success on the merits.  The applicants have
made a strong showing that the challenged restrictions vi-
olate “the minimum requirement of neutrality” to religion. 
Church  of  Lukumi  Babalu  Aye,  Inc.  v.  Hialeah,  508  U. S. 
520, 533 (1993).  As noted by the dissent in the court below,
statements  made  in  connection  with  the  challenged  rules
can  be  viewed  as  targeting  the  “ ‘ultra-Orthodox  [Jewish] 
community.’ ”  ___  F. 3d  ___,  ___,  2020  WL  6750495,  *5 
(CA2, Nov. 9, 2020) (Park, J., dissenting).  But even if we 
put those comments aside, the regulations cannot be viewed