Last night SCOTUS held that California may not put a flat ban on indoor worship, but may impose a 25% capacity limitation, masking, distancing rules, and a singing ban. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf

Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, dissented.

The usual suspects lost their stupid minds over such an obvious decision.

A state rule that says there is no acceptable number of individuals worshiping inside a cathedral that seats 3,000 while nail and hair salons are allowed to open is, on its face, religious discrimination.

We've come back to this time and time again since the start of the pandemic.

The state cannot put worship spaces in a worse position than it does secular spaces. If a capacity limitation is appropriate for businesses, the state cannot impose a flat ban on worship spaces.

This decision was on an application for a preliminary injunction.

The case is still pending below with a great deal of evidentiary development to come. So you can expect to be hearing about these issues again.

There were some interesting splits here. The Chief writes only for himself, mostly in what seems an answer to Justice Kagan's dissent, which focuses on deference to science policy and takes a shot about SCOTUS justices being insulated from the consequences of their decisions.

Justice Barrett, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, wrote separately that they don't think the applicant-church carried its burden on the question of the singing ban, but note that further evidentiary developments may change that.

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, go through California's justifications for the flat ban on indoor worship, and finds them wanting, including the singing ban.

And don't miss Justice Gorsuch's footnote, which invites litigating the issue of disparate occupancy caps at the other tiers California has established to combat the virus.

Here's Justice Gorsuch's kicker, noting that the "temporary" restrictions don't seem all that temporary as we start Year 2.

Dissenting Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, say that churches are being treated like similar secular spaces, and that the Court should yield to "science-based policy."

Hard to overstate how much Justice Kagan is just throwing up her hands and yelling "SCIENCE!"

And here's Kagan's conclusion, which is what I think prompted CJ Roberts' concurring opinion.

There is such a gap between Justice Kagan and the others on religious rights. Consider this line:

"The Court has decided that the State must exempt worship services from the strictest aspect of its regulation of public gatherings."

Um...yeah. There's this amendment thing, see.

I read that sentence, and I see a giant red flag: "worship services from the strictest aspect of its regulation of public gatherings."

To me if the state has subjected worship services to the strictest regulation of public gatherings, that is *itself* a 1A problem.

But Justice Kagan doesn't read that line the same way. She's appalled (to the point she suggests the majority will get people killed) that worship services would be exempted.

But not even totally exempted. California may still impose capacity limits, masking, etc.