Tandon v. Newsom

Background

A group of people who want to hold religious gatherings in private homes challenged California’s rule limiting at‑home gatherings to three households. They sought an injunction after lower courts denied emergency relief, and asked the Supreme Court to step in while appeals and any petition for review proceed. The Court considered whether California treats at‑home religious worship worse than comparable secular activities.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether California permits comparable secular activities while restricting at‑home worship, which would trigger strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause. The per curiam noted California allows more than three households in places like hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events, and indoor restaurants. The Ninth Circuit erred by excluding those activities as comparators simply because they occur in public rather than private buildings. The Court said the State must show that less‑restrictive precautions could not make at‑home worship equally safe. Finding the applicants likely to succeed and irreparably harmed, the Court granted an injunction pending appeal.

Real world impact

The order lets larger at‑home religious gatherings proceed while appeals and any Supreme Court petition are pending; it will end if the Court denies review or issues a final judgment. The opinion notes earlier restrictions remained in place until April 15 and officials could reinstate them, so the relief is temporary. The decision pressures states to explain why they treat religious gatherings more strictly than similar secular activities.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kagan (joined by two colleagues) would have denied relief, arguing California’s blanket at‑home rule treats religious and secular home gatherings the same and that the record shows homes pose higher COVID risks; the Chief Justice also would have denied the application.