Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4  SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH v. NEWSOM 

Statement of GORSUCH, J. 

for too much time.  Yet, California does not limit its citizens 
to  running  in  and  out  of  other  establishments;  no  one  is 
barred from lingering in shopping malls, salons, or bus ter-
minals.  Nor, yet again, has California explained why more 
narrowly  tailored  options,  like  a  reasonable  limit  on  the 
length of indoor religious gatherings, would fail to meet its 
concerns. 
  When it comes to each of the first three factors, California 
singles out religion for worse treatment than many secular 
activities.  At the same time, the State fails to explain why 
narrower  options  it  finds  sufficient  in  secular  contexts  do 
not  satisfy  its  legitimate  interests.    Recently,  this  Court 
made  it  abundantly  clear  that  edicts  like  California’s  fail 
strict  scrutiny  and  violate  the  Constitution.    See  Roman 
Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, ante, at ___ (per cu-
riam).  Today’s order should have been needless; the lower 
courts  in  these  cases  should  have  followed  the  extensive 
guidance this Court already gave.1 
  If I have a quibble with the Court’s order, it is with how 
it  addresses  California’s  final  factor,  singing.    While  the 
Court’s order requires California to allow churches to open, 
it also permits California to enforce, for now, a categorical 
ban on singing during services.  This much might seem un-
derstandable.    California  has  sensibly  expressed  concern 
that singing may be a particularly potent way to transmit 
the  disease,  and  it  has  banned  singing  not  just  at  indoor 
worship services, but at indoor private gatherings, schools, 
and restaurants too. 
  But,  on  further  inspection,  the  singing  ban  may  not  be 

—————— 

1 While today’s case concerns the total ban on indoor worship found in 
“Tier  1,”  nothing  in  our  order  precludes  future  challenges  to  the  other 
disparate occupancy caps applicable to places of worship, particularly in 
“Tiers” 2 through 4.  See App. to Emergency Application for Writ of In-
junction, App. G–3.