Agudath Israel of America The Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, 20-3572 20-3590

New York Governor Cuomo issued zone-based COVID-19 restrictions (red/orange/yellow) that cap in-person attendance at houses of worship (e.g., red: 25% or 10 people, whichever is fewer).
Agudath Israel and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn challenged the order as violating the Free Exercise Clause and sought preliminary injunctions; district courts denied relief.
Appellants moved in the Second Circuit for injunctions pending appeal and to expedite; an applications judge had denied administrative stays.
The Second Circuit denied Agudath Israel’s motion on procedural grounds (failure to move first in district court under Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)) and denied the Diocese’s motion on the merits.
The majority held the restrictions are neutral and generally applicable (religious services were treated similar to or more favorably than comparable secular gatherings) and thus did not trigger strict scrutiny; appellants failed the high standard for an appellate injunction.
Judge Park dissented, arguing the order is nonneutral, targets houses of worship, should be subject to strict scrutiny, and that injunctive factors (irreparable harm, equities, public interest) favor plaintiffs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural compliance with Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)	Agudath moved to this Court for injunctive relief after district denial	Rule 8(a) requires moving first in district court; failure unexplained	Denied Agudath’s motion for procedural noncompliance (Agudath didn’t move first)
Standard for appellate injunction/stay	Plaintiffs sought injunction pending appeal (substantial likelihood suffices)	Appellate injunction requires stronger showing than a stay; emergency relief is extraordinary	Denied: movants failed to meet the heightened showing required for an appellate injunction
Free Exercise — neutrality / general applicability	Order targets religious exercise (houses of worship singled out); therefore strict scrutiny applies	Order treats religious gatherings similar or more favorably than comparable secular activities; neutral and generally applicable	Majority: neutral and generally applicable → no strict scrutiny; restrictions permissible; dissent: order nonneutral and fails strict scrutiny
Other injunction factors (irreparable harm, balance, public interest)	Loss of First Amendment freedoms and religious exercise is irreparable; equities/public interest favor relief	Public-health goals and parity with secular restrictions weigh against injunction	Majority: plaintiffs failed to satisfy overall injunction standard; dissent: irreparable harm and equities favor plaintiffs

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (extraordinary nature and four-factor standard for injunctions)
New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 974 F.3d 210 (heightened showing for a stay pending appeal)
Respect Maine PAC v. McKee, 562 U.S. 996 (appellate injunctions require greater justification than stays)
Espinoza v. Mont. Dep’t of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (Free Exercise protects religious observers from unequal treatment)
Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (neutral, generally applicable laws not subject to strict scrutiny)
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (laws targeting religion trigger strict scrutiny)
Cent. Rabbinical Cong. of U.S. & Canada v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 763 F.3d 183 (analysis of neutrality and general applicability under Free Exercise)
South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (emergency COVID-19 injunction denial; guidance on parity with comparable secular activities)
Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, 962 F.3d 341 (upholding caps on religious gatherings where comparable secular activities were equally or more restricted)
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (public-health precedent; not dispositive for Free Exercise analysis)