By Andrew Hulett
As many by now have learned, the Supreme Court recently halted New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s public safety restrictions on religious services in certain areas with high rates of COVID-19. At issue in the case, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, was that two religious institutions, the Roman Catholic Diocese and Agudath Israel, sought an injunction against Governor Cuomo’s executive order imposing restrictions on gatherings at houses of worships in areas classified as “red” or “orange” zones during the pandemic. Red zones restrict such gatherings to ten people and orange zones restrict such gatherings to 25 people. Notably, this was Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s first case on the Supreme Court since being sworn in. A decision was issued per curiam, however, meaning without a named author. As such, all we know of the new Justice’s position is that she sided with the conservative majority but issued no opinion of her own.
The majority opinion makes no mention of COVID-19 cases or deaths, nor speaks to expert recommendations. Instead, only a single line states, “[m]embers of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgement of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area.” Alas, this one sentence did little to deter granting the injunction against the restrictions on public gatherings. According to the Court majority, houses of worship were given far more severe restrictions than both essential and non-essential businesses in areas designated as red zones and orange zones. The Court also took issue with the Governor’s classification of essential businesses, highlighting “acupuncture facilities, camp [sic] grounds, garages” as well as services the Court believes are not essential such as “plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities.” The majority highlighted that, “[s]temming the spread of COVID-19 is unquestionably a compelling interest.” But they believed the executive order simply was too severe and that leniency towards houses of worship was required. The Court noted that houses of worship which could seat between 400 and 1,000 people were limited to 10-25 people. “It is hard to believe that admitting more than 10 people to a 1,000–seat church or 400–seat synagogue would create a more serious health risk than the many other activities that the State allows.” This naturally raises concerns, however, about what else could be a permissible restriction in light of the opinion.
