Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf
Page Number: 5

2  SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH v. NEWSOM 

KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting 

  In my view, California’s discrimination against religious 
worship  services contravenes the  Constitution.    As  a  gen-
eral matter, the “government may not use religion as a ba-
sis  of  classification for the  imposition  of  duties, penalties, 
privileges or benefits.”  McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U. S. 618, 639 
(1978) (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment).  This Court 
has stated that discrimination against religion is “odious to 
our Constitution.”  Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, 
Inc. v. Comer, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 15); see 
also,  e.g., Good  News  Club  v. Milford  Central School,  533 
U. S. 98 (2001); Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. 
of Va., 515 U. S. 819 (1995); Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, 
Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520 (1993); Lamb’s Chapel v. Cen-
ter Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U. S. 384 (1993); 
McDaniel, 435 U. S. 618. 
  To  justify  its  discriminatory  treatment  of religious wor-
ship services, California must show that its rules are “jus-
tified  by  a  compelling  governmental  interest”  and  “nar-
rowly tailored to advance that interest.”  Lukumi, 508 U. S., 
at 531–532.  California undoubtedly has a compelling inter-
est  in  combating  the  spread  of  COVID–19  and  protecting 
the health of its citizens.  But “restrictions inexplicably ap-
plied to one group and exempted from another do little to 
further  these  goals  and  do much  to  burden  religious free-
dom.”    Roberts  v.  Neace,  958  F. 3d  409,  414  (CA6  2020) 
(per curiam).  What California needs is a compelling justifi-
cation for distinguishing between (i) religious worship ser-
vices and (ii) the litany of other secular businesses that are 
not subject to an occupancy cap. 
  California  has  not  shown  such  a  justification.    The 
Church has agreed to abide by the State’s rules that apply 
to  comparable  secular  businesses.    That  raises  important 
questions: “Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, 
why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but 
not  a  pew?    And  why  can  someone  safely  interact  with  a 
brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister?”  Ibid.