South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom
Application for injunctive relief granted in partLinked with:
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20A136 | 9th Cir. | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | OT 2021 |
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should temporarily suspend regulations by San Diego County and California Gov. Gavin Newsom that restrict attendance at houses of worship while allowing some secular business to remain open during the COVID-19 pandemic in light of the court's decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Counting votes in the South Bay decision (Tom Goldstein, February 9, 2021)
- Divided court allows indoor worship services to resume in California (Amy Howe, February 6, 2021)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| Jan 25 2021 | Application (20A136) for injunctive relief, submitted to Justice Kagan. |
| Jan 26 2021 | Response to application (20A136) requested by Justice Kagan, due Friday, January 29, by 5 p.m. ET. |
| Jan 27 2021 | 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. |
| Jan 29 2021 | Response to application from respondents Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, et al. filed. |
| Jan 29 2021 | Response to application from respondents Wilma J. Wooten, et al. filed. |
| Jan 29 2021 | 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. |
| Jan 30 2021 | Letter of applicants South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. filed. |
| Jan 30 2021 | Reply of applicants South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. filed. |
| Feb 05 2021 | Application (20A136) referred to the Court. |
| Feb 05 2021 | 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 Opinion). CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, concurring in the partial grant of application for injunctive relief. (Detached Opinion). JUSTICE BARRETT, with whom JUSTICE KAVANAUGH joins, concurring in the partial grant of application for injunctive relief. (Detached Opinion). Statement of JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join. (Detached Opinion). JUSTICE KAGAN, with whom |
