Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo
208 L. Ed. 2d 206
| SCOTUS | 2020Background
- New York Executive Order 202.68 imposed fixed numerical caps on in‑person worship in COVID hot spots: 10 persons in “red” zones and 25 persons in “orange” zones, regardless of building size or safety measures.
- Petitioners: Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America (representing Orthodox Jewish congregations) challenged the caps as violating the Free Exercise Clause; they contend they complied with safety protocols and had no outbreaks.
- Lower courts (district court and Second Circuit) denied emergency injunctions; Second Circuit set expedited briefing and scheduled a December merits hearing.
- The Supreme Court (per curiam) granted injunctive relief, enjoining enforcement of the 10‑ and 25‑person caps for the applicants pending disposition in the Second Circuit and any timely certiorari petition.
- The majority found the rules nonneutral and singled out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment compared with many secular activities, concluding plaintiffs showed likelihood of success, irreparable First Amendment harm, and that injunctions served the public interest.
- Separate concurrences (Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) emphasized strict First Amendment protection against religious discrimination; dissenters (Chief Justice Roberts; Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) would have denied relief now, stressing deference to public‑health judgments and that affected sites had been reclassified to yellow zones.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neutrality / general applicability under Free Exercise | Caps target religion and treat houses of worship worse than many secular businesses; statements show targeting | Rules are neutral or favor religion relative to comparable secular gatherings; aimed at public health | Majority: Rules are not neutral/general; they single out worship and trigger strict scrutiny; plaintiffs likely to prevail |
| Strict scrutiny: compelling interest and narrow tailoring | Even if interest compelling, caps are not narrowly tailored; less restrictive alternatives (capacity percent tied to building size, distancing) exist | Measures are necessary to curb COVID spread; tailored to local hotspots and supported by health judgment | Majority: Although disease control is compelling, the fixed 10/25 caps are not narrowly tailored here; likely to fail strict scrutiny |
| Irreparable harm and preliminary‑injunction standard | Loss of First Amendment rights is irreparable; plaintiffs will be barred from core religious observance | Injunction unnecessary because areas were reclassified to yellow and relief is extraordinary; courts should defer | Majority: Irreparable harm shown; injunction appropriate pending appeals; dissent: no present need to enjoin and would defer to public‑health officials |
| Mootness / timing and deference to public health | Reclassification is temporary risk; plaintiffs face imminent reimposition and cannot wait for full review | Reclassification to yellow makes immediate relief unnecessary; courts should wait for normal appellate process | Majority: Not moot—risk of reclassification makes injunction necessary now; dissenters disagree and would await renewed application if restrictions return |
Key Cases Cited
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (law targeting religion must satisfy strict scrutiny)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary‑injunction standard)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (public‑health authority precedent considered but distinguished)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable injury)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (injunction is an extraordinary remedy)
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral laws of general applicability and free exercise analysis)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. _ (2018) (facial neutrality of governmental action)
- South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U.S. _ (2020) (recent COVID‑era decisions concerning deference to public‑health measures)
- Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U.S. _ (2020) (COVID‑era limits on worship attendance)