On Friday, February 5, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Bay United Pentecostal Church in its case against the stringent restrictions placed on indoor worship services by California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In its 6-3 decision, the Court formally reversed the earlier ruling of South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom deliberated on May 29, 2020, which permitted 25% occupancy in indoor worship services and set a precedent valuing a strict scrutiny standard of review in cases concerning the effect of COVID-19 restrictions on fundamental rights, such as freedom of religion.
Since the COVID-19 virus first emerged, it has proven to be a volatile and unprecedented challenge to all humans. Its rapid and widespread contagion rates in the state of California led Governor Gavin Newsom to issue an executive order placing temporary numerical restrictions on public gatherings in areas of the state where the virus is most prominent. Within such restrictions, “indoor church services were prohibited in regions of the state…where the coronavirus is designated as ‘widespread’.” In opposition to the rigid regulations on indoor worship services, South Bay Pentecostal Church issued an application for injunctive relief on the grounds that California’s restrictions infringed on their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The application was first denied by the Supreme Court in May 2020.
South Bay, which was once assessed under the scope of a rational basis standard of review, was recently reevaluated by the Supreme Court as a strict scrutiny case. Under rational basis, the Court had identified that the regulations imposed on indoor gatherings such as religious services by Governor Newsom’s executive order, although harsh, were a rational solution to the rapid spread of COVID-19 in the state of California. The Court had also held that such regulations did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because “similar restrictions applied to comparable secular gatherings where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time.”
In light of the longevity of California’s constraints on indoor worship services and the more recent Supreme Court precedential decisions in the cases of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo and Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom, the Court approached South Bay with an alternate standard of review. Strict scrutiny was employed by the Court in November 2020 in both Catholic Diocese and Harvest Rock II, when the Court temporarily blocked restrictions on the number of attendees at houses of worship on the grounds that such restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Under strict scrutiny in South Bay, and in line with such precedents, the Court identified that state governments did have a compelling interest in limiting the spread of COVID-19 but that the measures employed were too broad as the regulations imposed by Governor Newsom restricted churches to a greater degree than comparable industries such as bus terminals, stores, shopping malls, salons, and other retail establishment.
While the Court did rule in favor of South Bay, the reversal of the original decision was a partial victory for the church. As specified by Chief Justice Roberts in his concurring decision, the application for injunctive relief was only granted in part as the majority of the Court voted to deny occupancy percentages higher than 25% capacity and to lift prohibitions on singing and chanting during indoor worship services. The Court’s more liberal Justices, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, joined in a potent dissent drafted by Justice Kagan in which she articulated the stance that Justices were not in a position to displace the judgments of experts such as scientists and public health officials. Justice Kagan argued that the Court was making an exception for churches even though “the State’s policies treat worship just as favorably as secular activities that pose the same risk of COVID transmission.” She finalized her argument by stating that because the only secular gatherings favored by California’s regulations included those that possess less of risk of virus transmission, there was “nothing in [Governor Newsom’s policies] that violated the First Amendment.”
In the last year, the COVID-19 virus has left scientists, scholars, physicians, and government officials mystified on how to best limit and control its rapid spread. Although many facts surrounding COVID-19 remain an enigma, today we approach the disease with more knowledge than before, as scientists have come closer to comprehending the root of its transmission and its effects on those who contract the virus. With that said, the Supreme Court decided to designate Governor Newsom’s regulations as too broad and overturn South Bay’s original ruling, thus loosening California’s restrictions on indoor worship services.
As declared by Justice Kagan in her dissent when quoting Dr. James Watt, the Chief of Communicable Diseases at the California Department of Public Health, and Dr. George Rutherford, a professor of epidemiology at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, “transmission is more likely [to occur] at indoor public gatherings which bring together many people of different households.” More specifically those of “extended duration when there is a lot of verbal interaction, especially when there is group singing, chanting, or other loud vocalization.” Worship services, unlike retail businesses, where people do not often find themselves in close proximity, are gatherings fulfilling all of the previously mentioned criteria and thus facilitate the spread of COVID-19. Indeed, the recent Supreme Court decision in South Bay continues to prohibit singing and chanting.
However, loosening capacity restrictions on church services guarantees that people from “different households” will find themselves in close proximity to each other for extended periods of time, thus almost certainly worsening the spread of COVID-19. Adapting to the unprecedented and harsh conditions that swarmed this country when COVID-19 arrived has been a challenge to all. Although our country’s most established physicians and healthcare officials have faced COVID-19 valiantly and now find themselves better equipped to protect US citizens from its perils, we must heed the knowledge they have provided and apply the necessary precautions to prevent COVID-19 from spreading further. The Supreme Court’s decision in South Bay will formally test scientific evidence in a real-world setting by enabling citizens to participate in worship services that experts claim are bound to assist the spread of the virus that they are desperately battling to contain.