Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN v. CUOMO 

Per Curiam 

of  “general  applicability,”  they  must  satisfy  “strict  scru-
tiny,” and this means that they must be “narrowly tailored” 
to serve a “compelling” state interest.  Church of Lukumi, 
508  U. S.,  at  546.    Stemming  the  spread  of  COVID–19  is
unquestionably a compelling interest, but it is hard to see 
how  the  challenged  regulations  can  be  regarded  as  “nar-
rowly  tailored.”  They  are  far  more  restrictive  than  any 
COVID–related regulations that have previously come be-
fore the Court,2 much tighter than those adopted by many 
other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic, and far more 
severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the 
spread of the virus at the applicants’ services.  The District 
Court noted that “there ha[d] not been any COVID–19 out-
break in any of the Diocese’s churches since they reopened,” 
and it praised the Diocese’s record in combatting the spread
of the disease.  ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___, 2020 WL 6120167, 
*2  (EDNY,  Oct.  16,  2020).    It  found  that  the  Diocese  had 
been  constantly  “ahead  of  the  curve,  enforcing  stricter
safety protocols than the State required.”  Ibid.  Similarly,
Agudath Israel notes that “[t]he Governor does not dispute 
that  [it]  ha[s]  rigorously  implemented  and  adhered  to  all
health  protocols  and  that  there  has  been  no  outbreak  of 
COVID–19  in  [its]  congregations.”  Application  in  No.
20A90, at 36. 

Not  only  is  there  no  evidence  that  the  applicants  have
contributed to the spread of COVID–19 but there are many
other  less  restrictive  rules  that  could  be  adopted  to  mini-
mize the risk to those attending religious services.  Among
other things, the maximum attendance at a  religious ser-
vice  could  be  tied  to  the  size  of  the  church  or  synagogue. 
Almost all of the 26 Diocese churches immediately affected 

—————— 

2 See Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___ (2020) (di-
rective  limiting  in-person  worship  services  to  50  people);  South  Bay 
United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___ (2020) (Executive
Order limiting in-person worship to 25% capacity or 100 people, which-
ever was lower).