Introduction

In the landmark case Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York (No. 20A87), the Supreme Court of the United States addressed the constitutionality of Executive Order 202.68, issued by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. This executive order imposed strict occupancy limits—10 persons in red zones and 25 persons in orange zones—on religious services amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, alongside Agudath Israel of America, challenged these restrictions, asserting that they violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause by discriminating against religious institutions compared to secular businesses.

This comprehensive commentary delves into the Court's decision to grant temporary injunctive relief against the enforcement of the occupancy limits, examines the legal reasoning and precedents cited, analyzes the potential impact of this judgment, and clarifies complex legal concepts inherent in the case.

Summary of the Judgment

On November 25, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion granting temporary injunctive relief to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America. The Court enjoined New York Governor Cuomo from enforcing Executive Order 202.68’s stringent occupancy limits on religious services in red and orange zones pending the outcome of appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the disposition of a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court itself.

The decision was unanimous in granting the injunction despite differing opinions on the merits of the case. Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh provided concurring opinions emphasizing the undue restrictions and potential discrimination against religious entities. Conversely, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented, arguing that the restrictions were necessary public health measures during a pandemic and that the current change in zone classifications rendered the case moot.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court referenced several key precedents to substantiate its judgment:

• CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. v. HIALEAH (1993): Established that laws affecting religious practices must be neutral and generally applicable.
• Trump v. Hawaii (2018): Discussed the standard of neutrality and general applicability in executive actions.
• South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2020): Addressed restrictions on religious gatherings during COVID-19, emphasizing that measures must not target religious institutions specifically.
• Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak (2020): Evaluated occupancy limits on religious services, reinforcing that restrictions must be comparable to those on secular entities.
• Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (2008): Outlined the criteria for granting injunctive relief, including likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and public interest considerations.
• JACOBSON v. MASSACHUSETTS (1905): Historically cited regarding public health measures, though its applicability in modern contexts, especially under First Amendment scrutiny, was debated.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's legal reasoning centered on the principle that government regulations must be neutral towards religion and must not impose undue burdens on religious practices without a compelling justification. The Court found that New York's Executive Order 202.68 failed this test for several reasons:

• Lack of Neutrality: The restrictions disproportionately targeted religious gatherings compared to secular businesses classified as "essential," which included a wide range of entities from acupuncture facilities to chemical plants. This selective application undermined the neutrality required under the Free Exercise Clause.
• Disparate Treatment: While essential businesses could admit unlimited persons, houses of worship were subjected to fixed, severe caps irrespective of their capacity or implemented safety measures, exacerbating potential discrimination.
• Strict Scrutiny: Given the lack of neutrality and general applicability, the restrictions were subjected to strict scrutiny. The state failed to demonstrate that these measures were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, as the Diocese and Agudath Israel had successfully maintained low transmission rates despite the restrictions.
• Irreparable Harm: The Court acknowledged that barring individuals from attending religious services constitutes irreparable harm, as it infringes on fundamental religious freedoms without adequate remedy.
• Public Interest: Enforcing such discriminatory restrictions did not serve the public interest, especially when less restrictive alternatives could achieve similar public health outcomes.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent in balancing public health concerns with constitutional rights, particularly regarding religious freedoms during emergencies. Key impacts include:

• Strengthening Religious Protections: Reinforces that governmental restrictions must not single out religious institutions unless justified by a compelling interest and that measures must be neutral and generally applicable.
• Limitations on Executive Power: Curbs the extent to which executive orders can impose severe restrictions on specific sectors, especially those related to religious practices, without sufficient justification.
• Guidance for Future Public Health Measures: Establishes that while public health is paramount, measures must respect constitutional liberties, ensuring that restrictions are proportionate and non-discriminatory.
• Judicial Oversight: Emphasizes the role of the judiciary in reviewing executive actions to safeguard constitutional rights, even during emergencies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Free Exercise Clause

Part of the First Amendment, this clause protects individuals' rights to practice their religion freely without undue government interference. In this case, it was invoked to argue against the occupancy limits imposed on religious services.

Strict Scrutiny

The highest standard of judicial review used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of government actions. Under strict scrutiny, the government must demonstrate that a regulation serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The Court applied this standard, finding that New York's restrictions did not meet the necessary criteria.

Injunctive Relief

A court-ordered act or prohibition against certain actions. Temporary injunctive relief was granted to prevent the enforcement of the occupancy limits while the case proceeded through the appellate system.

Neutrality and General Applicability

Laws must not favor or disfavor any particular religion and must apply equally to all similar cases. The Court found that New York's restrictions were not neutral as they discriminated against religious institutions compared to secular businesses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo marks a pivotal moment in the jurisprudence surrounding religious freedoms amid public health emergencies. By granting temporary injunctive relief against New York's discriminatory occupancy limits, the Court underscored the paramount importance of maintaining constitutional protections even during crises. This ruling reaffirms that while public health measures are essential, they must be implemented in a manner that is neutral, non-discriminatory, and respects the foundational liberties enshrined in the Constitution. The judgment not only provides immediate relief to the affected religious communities but also sets a clear standard for future governmental actions balancing safety and freedom.