Tandon v. Newsom
593 U.S. 61
SCOTUS2021Background:
- California limited at-home gatherings to three households during COVID-19; plaintiffs (Tandon et al.) challenged that restriction as violating the Free Exercise Clause.
- The Ninth Circuit denied an injunction pending appeal; plaintiffs sought emergency injunctive relief from the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court (per curiam) granted injunctive relief pending the Ninth Circuit appeal and any timely cert petition, concluding the Ninth Circuit erred.
- The Court found California permits many secular activities (salons, retail, theaters, restaurants, private suites) that effectively allow more-than-three-household mixing, creating comparators for religious at-home worship.
- The Court reiterated that regulations treating comparable secular activities more favorably trigger strict scrutiny, and the State must prove narrow tailoring (show no less-restrictive means).
- Although California modified its policy after the application, restrictions remained in force until a date certain and officials could reinstate them, so the case was not moot.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the at-home restriction is neutral and generally applicable | Tandon: not neutral/applicable because California allows comparable secular activities that bring multiple households | Newsom: California adopted a blanket at-home limit on all gatherings, religious and secular alike | Court: Not generally applicable here; strict scrutiny applies because comparable secular activities are treated more favorably |
| How to assess comparability of secular activities | Plaintiffs: comparability judged by COVID risk; many secular activities pose similar risks when precautions are used | State: activities like stores/salons differ (shorter interactions, better ventilation, easier enforcement) and thus are not comparable | Court: Comparability is measured against the government’s asserted interests; Ninth Circuit erred in dismissing private-home comparators simply because others were public |
| Whether the State met its burden under strict scrutiny/narrow tailoring | Plaintiffs: State failed to show less-restrictive measures wouldn’t address transmission risk for at-home worship | State: public-health emergency justifies the restriction; different settings justify differential treatment | Court: State did not carry its burden to show narrow tailoring; must show religious activity is more dangerous even with similar precautions |
| Mootness and effect of policy changes during litigation | Plaintiffs: relief still needed because restrictions remained and could be reinstated; threat of reimposition keeps issue live | State: policy changes lessen or eliminate need for injunctive relief | Court: Not moot; applicants face a real threat of reinstated restrictions and remain entitled to emergency relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. _ (per curiam) (treating comparable secular activity more favorably triggers strict scrutiny)
- South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 592 U.S. _ (statement of Gorsuch) (government must show narrow tailoring; courts may grant emergency relief)
- High Plains Harvest Church v. Polis, 592 U.S. _ (emergency relief and mootness principles in COVID restrictions context)
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (strict scrutiny standard for laws targeting religious practice)
- Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2020) (government may not assume worship is inherently more dangerous than work)
- Gateway City Church v. Newsom, 592 U.S. _ (per curiam) (applied same free-exercise principles to California COVID restrictions)