Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak
The Supreme Court refused — without explanation — to issue an emergency order blocking Nevada's COVID-19 rules that capped church attendance at 50 people regardless of building size, even as the same rules allowed casinos to operate at 50% of their often enormous capacity.
Four justices dissented sharply, calling the rules blatant religious discrimination. The unsigned one-line denial is not a ruling on whether Nevada's restrictions are constitutional; that question remains open in the lower courts.
How it got here: The church sought an emergency injunction in federal district court; both the district court and Ninth Circuit denied relief; the church then applied directly to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley, a rural Nevada church, wanted to hold worship services for about 90 people — 50% of its fire-code capacity — with extensive precautions: six-foot family spacing, 45-minute services, one-way traffic paths, masks, and sanitizing between services. An infectious-disease expert said its safety measures equaled or exceeded CDC guidelines. But Nevada's COVID-19 reopening rules imposed a hard 50-person cap on all houses of worship, while casinos, gyms, bowling alleys, and breweries could admit up to 50% of their total capacity, sometimes meaning thousands of patrons at once.
The question before the Court
Could a Nevada church get an emergency court order blocking state COVID-19 rules that capped church attendance at 50 people while letting casinos and gyms admit far larger crowds?
The Court's answer
No — a majority of the Court denied the church's request for an emergency order, without any explanation. A majority apparently concluded that the church had not cleared the high legal bar required to obtain emergency relief directly from the Supreme Court, which demands a very strong showing that the underlying lawsuit will succeed, that serious harm will result without relief, and that the public interest favors immediate action.
Four justices dissented sharply. They argued that Nevada's rules were obviously discriminatory — treating churches far worse than casinos, gyms, and bars that posed at least as much COVID risk — and that all the requirements for emergency relief were easily met. The denial does not decide whether Nevada's rules are constitutional; the church's lawsuit continues in the lower federal courts.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
During the COVID-19 pandemic, every house of worship in Nevada — no matter how large — was limited to 50 attendees, while casinos, gyms, bowling alleys, and bars could admit thousands. For congregants, this meant many churches could not hold services for their communities even with strict safety plans in place. The Court's silence left the constitutional question unresolved and the restrictions in effect.
What changes now
The one-line denial leaves Nevada's 50-person church cap in place while the underlying lawsuit proceeds in the federal courts below. The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether the restrictions are constitutional, and Calvary Chapel's case returns to the district court and Ninth Circuit. Other religious-liberty challenges to COVID-19 restrictions around the country were proceeding on similar tracks, with this order offering no definitive guidance.
What this does not decide
The Court did not rule on whether Nevada's COVID-19 church attendance cap is constitutional. The denial means only that the church did not meet the demanding standard for emergency relief at this stage; the underlying lawsuit — and the constitutional question — remains unresolved and open in the lower courts.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Alito
“But a public health emergency does not give Governors and other public officials carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists.”Justice Alito's core argument that emergency powers do not suspend constitutional rights indefinitely.
Justice Alito argued Nevada's directive blatantly discriminates against religion by capping church attendance at 50 while allowing casinos, gyms, and bowling alleys to operate at 50% capacity — a disparity that triggers strict scrutiny the State cannot survive. He also argued the rules violate the Free Speech Clause because religion is a viewpoint, and that the Governor's decision to endorse street protests while threatening to enforce the cap against churches confirmed the viewpoint discrimination. He would have issued an injunction.
Dissent — Justice Gorsuch
“But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.”Justice Gorsuch's pointed summary of why he believed Nevada's COVID rules impermissibly elevated gambling over worship.
Justice Gorsuch wrote a brief dissent emphasizing that Nevada's rules made it better to be in the entertainment industry than in religion — an obvious form of discrimination the First Amendment forbids. Pandemic challenges are real, he wrote, but there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.
Dissent — Justice Kavanaugh
Justice Kavanaugh joined Justice Alito's dissent in full and wrote separately to offer a four-category framework for religious-freedom cases. When a law creates a favored class of secular organizations and excludes religion from it, the government must supply a sufficient justification. Nevada's two offered rationales — public health and the economy — both fail: bars, casinos, and gyms are at least as risky as religious services for COVID transmission, and the Constitution does not permit treating religion worse simply because it generates less revenue than the gambling industry.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- To obtain an emergency injunction from the Supreme Court, a party must show: it is very likely to succeed on its underlying legal claims; it faces serious harm without immediate relief; granting the order would not cause comparable harm to the other side; and the public interest supports acting now. The Court denied the application without explaining which of these factors the church failed to satisfy.
- The four dissenting justices argued that Nevada's directive had to survive strict scrutiny — the most demanding legal test in constitutional law — because the Free Exercise Clause forbids laws that single out religion for worse treatment without a very strong government justification. A rule is not 'neutral and generally applicable' under this standard when it explicitly imposes stricter limits on religious gatherings than on comparable secular ones.
- The dissents catalogued the disparity: casinos (50% capacity, potentially thousands of patrons), gyms, bowling alleys, and bars all received the looser 50% occupancy cap, while every house of worship was hard-capped at 50 people. The dissents noted that casino patrons sit in close quarters, drink alcohol (requiring mask removal), and travel from out of state — conditions the dissenters considered at least as risky as, if not riskier than, the socially distanced worship services Calvary Chapel proposed.
- Justice Alito also argued the rules violated the Free Speech Clause: under Court precedent, religion is a viewpoint, and favoring secular entertainment shows in casinos over religious expression in churches is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. He added that the Governor's decision to publicly participate in street protests while threatening enforcement against churches reinforced the viewpoint-discrimination problem.
- Justice Kavanaugh laid out a four-category framework for religious-freedom cases and argued that when a state law places some secular organizations in a favored class but excludes religious organizations, the state must supply a sufficient justification — and that Nevada's public-health and economic rationales both failed. Protecting the casino economy cannot justify treating religion worse than for-profit gambling under the First Amendment.
- The dissents distinguished the Court's recent South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom decision (which had denied a similar injunction to a California church) by noting that California's favored secular activities — offices, supermarkets, retail stores — did not involve people congregating in large groups for extended periods. Nevada's favored activities — casinos, bars, gyms — plainly did, making Nevada's rules indefensible even under South Bay's reasoning.