Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19a1070_08l1.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY v. SISOLAK 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

I 
  Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley is a church located in rural 
Nevada.  It wishes to host worship services for about 90 con-
gregants, a figure that amounts to 50% of its fire-code ca-
pacity.  In conducting these services, Calvary Chapel plans 
to take many precautions that go beyond anything that the 
State requires.  In addition to asking congregants to adhere 
to  proper  social  distancing  protocols,  it  intends  to  cut  the 
length of services in half.  It also plans to require six feet of 
separation between families seated in the pews, to prohibit 
items from being passed among the congregation, to guide 
congregants to designated doorways along one-way paths, 
and  to  leave  sufficient  time  between  services  so  that  the 
church can be sanitized.  According to an infectious disease 
expert, these measures are “equal to or more extensive than 
those recommended by the CDC.”  Electronic Court Filing 
in No. 3:20–CV–00303, Doc. 38–31 (D Nev., June 4, 2020), 
p. 6 (ECF). 
  Yet  hosting  even  this  type  of  service  would  violate  Di-
rective 21, Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak’s phase-two reo-
pening  plan,  which  limits  indoor  worship  services  to  “no 
more than fifty persons.”  ECF Doc. 38–2, §11.  Meanwhile, 
the directive caps a variety of secular gatherings at 50% of 
their operating capacity, meaning that they are welcome to 
exceed,  and  in  some  cases  far  exceed,  the  50-person  limit 
imposed on places of worship. 
  Citing this disparate treatment, Calvary Chapel brought 
suit in Federal District Court and sought an injunction al-
lowing  it  to  conduct  services,  in  accordance  with  its  plan, 
for up to 50% of maximum occupancy.  The District Court 
refused  to  grant  relief,  the  Ninth  Circuit  denied  Calvary 
Chapel’s application for an injunction pending appeal, and 
now this Court likewise denies relief. 
  I  would  grant  an  injunction  pending  appeal.    Calvary 
Chapel  is  very  likely  to  succeed  on  its  claim  that  the  di-