Question Presented (AI Summary)
Do Governor Newsom's lockdown orders and reopening restrictions under the 'Blueprint' framework, placing strict limitations, including closures, on all Places of Worship in California, violate South's Bay's First Amendment right to Free Exercise of Religion?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Once again, Petitioners South Bay United Pentecostal Church and Bishop Arthur Hodges III (‘South Bay”) must seek relief from this Court. California, in revising its reopening restrictions under a new “Blueprint” framework, exacerbates its discrimination and disparate treatment toward Places of Worship. While millions of Californians in a range of industries resumed business while observing mask-wearing and social distancing protocols, church services remain a disfavored activity in the eyes of the State and the County of San Diego. Similar scenarios playing out in other states generated a myriad of cases requesting stays and injunctions, several of which rose through appellate courts and were submitted to this Court for review. Lower courts are divided as to the constitutional standard for reviewing Free Exercise challenges to pandemic restrictions. Courts in the Fifth and Sixth Circuits have upheld claims under the Free Exercise Clause, applying strict scrutiny review, while Courts in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth circuits have rejected such claims, often relying in part on this Court’s decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts as justification for their excessive deference to the State. The Questions Presented are: 1. Do Governor Newsom’s lockdown orders and reopening restrictions under the “Blueprint” framework, placing strict limitations, including closures, on all Places of Worship in California, ii violate South’s Bay’s First Amendment right to Free Exercise of Religion? 2. What is the proper standard of review for the challenges to State and County restrictions upon Free Exercise of Religion rights during a pandemic, and does Jacobson v. Massachusetts impose extra limitations to this Court’s established line of Free Exercise jurisprudence during a pandemic? iii PARTIES AND
2021-04-26
Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of <i>Tandon</i> v. <i>Newsom</i>, 593 U. S. ___ (2021) (<i>per curiam</i>).
2021-04-15
Letter of April 15, 2021 from petitioner South Bay United Pentecostal Church filed.
2021-04-12
Letter of April 12, 2021 from counsel for respondents filed.
2021-04-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/23/2021.
2021-04-06
Reply of petitioners South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2021-03-18
Brief of respondents San Diego County Defendants' in opposition filed.
2021-03-18
Brief of respondents Gavin Newsom, et al. in opposition filed.
2021-02-05
The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted in part. Respondents are enjoined from enforcing the Blueprint’s Tier 1 prohibition on indoor worship services against the applicants pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari. The application is denied with respect to the percentage capacity limitations, and respondents are not en-joined from imposing a 25% capacity limitation on indoor worship services in Tier 1. The application is denied with respect to the prohibition on singing and chanting during indoor services. This order is without prejudice to the applicants presenting new evidence to the District Court that the State is not applying the percentage capacity limitations or the prohibition on singing and chanting in a generally applicable manner. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE GORSUCH would grant the application in full.
JUSTICE ALITO would grant the application with respect to all of the capacity restrictions on indoor worship services and the prohibition against indoor singing and chanting, and would stay for 30 days an injunction against the percentage attendance caps and the prohibition against indoor singing and chanting. (See Detached <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf#page=4'>Opinion</a>).
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, concurring in the partial grant of application for injunctive relief. (Detached <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf'>Opinion</a>).
JUSTICE BARRETT, with whom JUSTICE KAVANAUGH joins, concurring in the partial grant of application for injunctive relief. (Detached <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf#page=3'>Opinion</a>).
Statement of JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join. (Detached <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf#page=4'>Opinion</a>).
JUSTICE KAGAN, with whom
2021-02-05
Application (20A136) referred to the Court.
2021-01-30
Reply of applicants South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. filed.
2021-01-30
Letter of applicants South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. filed.
2021-01-29
Response to application from respondents Wilma J. Wooten, et al. filed.
2021-01-29
Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
2021-01-29
Response to application from respondents Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, et al. filed.
2021-01-27
Motion for leave to file amici brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al.
2021-01-26
Response to application (20A136) requested by Justice Kagan, due Friday, January 29, by 5 p.m. ET.
2021-01-25
Application (20A136) for injunctive relief, submitted to Justice Kagan.
2021-01-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 18, 2021.
2021-01-20
Response to motion from petitioner South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. filed.
2021-01-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 16, 2021 to March 18, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-01-14
Response Requested. (Due February 16, 2021)
2021-01-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.
2020-12-30
Waiver of right of respondents William D. Gore, Helen Robbins-Meyer, Dr. Wilma J. Wooten to respond filed.
2020-12-24
Waiver of right of respondents Gavin Newsom, et al. to respond filed.
2020-11-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 30, 2020)