High court lifts Calif. limits on home religious meetings
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court late Friday lifted California’s restrictions on religious gatherings in private homes, saying they could not be enforced to bar prayer meetings, Bible study classes and the like. The court’s brief, unsigned order followed earlier ones striking down limits on attendance at houses of worship meant to combat the coronavirus.
The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court’s three liberal members in dissent.
The unsigned majority opinion expressed impatience with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, saying it had repeatedly disregarded the Supreme Court’s instructions. “This is the fifth time the court has summarily rejected the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of California’s COVID restrictions on religious exercise,” the opinion said.
The majority said California had violated the Constitution by disfavoring prayer meetings. “California
treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts and indoor restaurants,” the opinion said.
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said the majority had compared in-home prayer meetings with the wrong kinds of activities.
“The First Amendment requires that a state treat religious conduct as well as the state treats comparable secular conduct,” Kagan wrote. “Sometimes finding the right secular analogue may raise hard questions. But not today.”
California need not, she wrote, “treat at-home religious gatherings the same as hardware stores and hair salons.”
Roberts voted with the dissenters but did not join Kagan’s opinion. He did not set out his reasoning.
In most of the state, all indoor gatherings had been limited to members of three households. The Rev.
Jeremy Wong and Karen Busch, residents of Santa Clara County who held religious services in their homes, challenged those limits, saying they interfered with their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.
A federal judge ruled against them, reasoning that the law imposed limits on all private gatherings, defined as “social situations that bring together people from different households at the same time in a single space or place,” and did not single out religious services.
A divided three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit refused to block that ruling while an appeal moved forward.
In asking the Supreme Court to intervene, the challengers called the majority’s reasoning “head-scratching.” The question was not, they said, whether “in-home birthday parties or Super Bowl gatherings” were limited along with religious services in private homes. It was whether such services were treated worse than activities like shopping, travel on public transportation and personal care.