S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom
Decision Date | 29 May 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 19A1044,19A1044 |
Parties | SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, et al. v. Gavin NEWSOM, Governor of California, et al. |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is denied.
Chief Justice ROBERTS, concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief.
The Governor of California's Executive Order aims to limit the spread of COVID–19, a novel severe acute respiratory illness that has killed thousands of people in California and more than 100,000 nationwide. At this time, there is no known cure, no effective treatment, and no vaccine. Because people may be infected but asymptomatic, they may unwittingly infect others. The Order places temporary numerical restrictions on public gatherings to address this extraordinary health emergency. State guidelines currently limit attendance at places of worship to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees.
Applicants seek to enjoin enforcement of the Order. "Such a request demands a significantly higher justification than a request for a stay because, unlike a stay, an injunction does not simply suspend judicial alteration of the status quo but grants judicial intervention that has been withheld by lower courts." Respect Maine PAC v. McKee , 562 U.S. 996, 131 S.Ct. 445, 178 L.Ed.2d 346 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). This power is used where "the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear" and, even then, "sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances." S. Shapiro, K. Geller, T. Bishop, E. Hartnett & D. Himmelfarb, Supreme Court Practice § 17.4, p. 17-9 (11th ed. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases).
Although California's guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.
The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement. Our Constitution principally entrusts "[t]he safety and the health of the people" to the politically accountable officials of the States "to guard and protect." Jacobson v. Massachusetts , 197 U.S. 11, 38, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643 (1905). When those officials "undertake[ ] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties," their latitude "must be especially broad." Marshall v. United States , 414 U.S. 417, 427, 94 S.Ct. 700, 38 L.Ed.2d 618 (1974). Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an "unelected federal judiciary," which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people. See Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority , 469 U.S. 528, 545, 105 S.Ct. 1005, 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985).
That is especially true where, as here, a party seeks emergency relief in an interlocutory posture, while local officials are actively shaping their response to changing facts on the ground. The notion that it is "indisputably clear" that the Government's limitations are unconstitutional seems quite improbable.
I would grant the Church's requested temporary injunction because California's latest safety guidelines discriminate against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses. Such discrimination violates the First Amendment.
In response to the COVID–19 health crisis, California has now limited attendance at religious worship services to 25% of building capacity or 100 attendees, whichever is lower. The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries.
South Bay United Pentecostal Church has applied for temporary injunctive relief from California's 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services. Importantly, the Church is willing to abide by the State's rules that apply to comparable secular businesses, including the rules regarding social distancing and hygiene. But the Church objects to a 25% occupancy cap that is imposed on religious worship services but not imposed on those comparable secular businesses.
In my view, California's discrimination against religious worship services contravenes the Constitution. As a general matter, the "government may not use religion as a basis of classification for the imposition of duties, penalties, privileges or benefits." McDaniel v. Paty , 435 U.S. 618, 639, 98 S.Ct. 1322, 55 L.Ed.2d 593 (1978) (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment). This Court has stated that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bimber's Delwood, Inc. v. James, 20-CV-1043S
...disease for which there is no known cure, no effective treatment, and no vaccine. See S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1613, 207 L. Ed. 2d 154 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief). It spreads rapidly by ......
-
Tandon v. Newsom
...to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,’ their latitude ‘must be especially broad.’ " South Bay , 140 S. Ct. at 1613 (Roberts, C.J., concurring) (quoting Marshall v. United States , 414 U.S. 417, 427, 94 S.Ct. 700, 38 L.Ed.2d 618 (1974) ). "Where those broad limit......
-
Let Them Play MN v. Walz
...not show that Defendants likely violated the Equal Protection Clause. See S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1613, 207 L.Ed.2d 154 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring) ("The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should ......
-
Oakes v. Collier Cnty.
...possible." (Doc. 67-8 at 2). This is a legitimate governmental interest. See S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1613, 207 L.Ed.2d 154 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring); Jacobson , 197 U.S. at 37-38, 25 S.Ct. 358.6 Having concluded the County had a ......
-
NEUTRALITY WITHOUT A TAPE MEASURE: ACCOMMODATING RELIGION AFTER AMERICAN LEGION.
...(186.) See, e.g., Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (per curiam); S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (2020) (mem.); High Plains Harvest Church v. Polis, 141 S. Ct. 527 (2020) (mem.); Gateway City Church v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 1460 (2021) (187.) Se......
-
THE "ESSENTIAL" FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE.
...reopening/?sh=le8bb89d489c/ [https://perma.cc/YQ5P-L3XU]. (17.) 140 S. Ct. 1613 (2020) (18.) Id. at 1613 (Roberts, C.J., concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief). (19.) Id. at 1613-14. (20.) Id. at 1613. (21.) Id. at 1614-15. (22.) 140 S. Ct. 2603 (2020) (mem.). (23.) Id. ......
-
JACOBSON 2.0: POLICE POWER IN THE TIME OF COVID-19.
...1:20-cv-01480-RM-MEH, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105247, at *4-5 (D. Colo. June 16, 2020) (citing S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1613-14 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring)); Xponential Fitness v. Arizona, No. CV-20-01310-PHX-DJH, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123379 at *19,......
-
ARBITRARY PROPERTY INTERFERENCE DURING A GLOBAL PANDEMIC AND BEYOND.
...(212.) 508 U.S. 307 (1993). (213.) Id. at 314. (214.) Id. at 315 (emphasis added); see also S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1613-14 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring); Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma Inc., 348 U.S. 483, 487 (1955) ("The Oklahoma law may ex......