## Facts

- During the COVID-19 pandemic, New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.68, which created color-coded geographic zones tied to infection rates.
- In “red” zones, attendance at religious services was limited to no more than 10 persons; in “orange” zones, attendance was capped at 25 persons—without regard to the size of the church or synagogue.
- At the same time, many businesses labeled “essential” in red and orange zones (including some that were not obviously tied to basic needs) were not subject to the same fixed numerical limits, while other nonessential businesses were required to close.
- The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America and affiliated Orthodox Jewish congregations challenged the executive order in federal court, alleging that the restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
- The religious institutions asserted that they had voluntarily limited attendance, followed public-health guidance, and pointed to evidence that their services had not produced COVID-19 outbreaks.
- After suit was filed, the State revised the applicable restrictions so that the applicants were, at that moment, permitted to hold services at up to 50% of capacity; the applicants argued the controversy remained live because their locations could be placed back into red or orange zones at any time.
- The district court denied emergency preliminary injunctive relief, and the Second Circuit denied an injunction pending appeal.
- The applicants sought emergency injunctive relief from the U.S. Supreme Court pending appellate proceedings; the application was presented to Justice Breyer as Circuit Justice and referred to the full Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the applicants satisfied the standards for emergency injunctive relief pending appeal by showing a likelihood of success on their Free Exercise claims, irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored relief.
2. Whether New York’s fixed numerical caps on worship, alongside more permissive treatment of many secular “essential” activities, were neutral and generally applicable under the Free Exercise Clause.
3. Whether the application was effectively moot because the applicants were not, at the time of decision, located in red or orange zones.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, granted the application for injunctive relief by a 5–4 vote.
- The Court enjoined New York from enforcing Executive Order 202.68’s 10- and 25-person occupancy limits against the applicants pending disposition of the appeal in the Second Circuit and any timely petition for certiorari.
- The Court concluded the applicants had “clearly established” entitlement to relief pending appellate review because their First Amendment claims were likely to prevail, denial of relief would cause irreparable injury, and granting relief would not harm the public interest.
- The Court declined to treat the case as moot, reasoning that the applicants remained subject to being reclassified into more restrictive zones, and therefore faced a continuing risk of renewed enforcement.

## Legal Principles

- A law that burdens religious exercise and is not neutral and generally applicable triggers strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.
- Regulations that single out houses of worship for especially severe restrictions, while allowing comparable secular activity more favorable treatment, are unlikely to be neutral and generally applicable.
- Even where the government asserts a compelling interest in limiting disease spread, it must show that the challenged restrictions are narrowly tailored; fixed numerical caps may be harder to justify than capacity-based limits when large worship spaces can accommodate distancing and other precautions.
- The loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for brief periods, constitutes irreparable injury for purposes of preliminary injunctive relief.
- In deciding emergency injunctive relief pending appeal, courts consider likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and whether the balance of equities and the public interest favor relief; constitutional limits remain enforceable during a public-health emergency.

## Conclusion

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, the Supreme Court granted emergency injunctive relief and barred New York from enforcing fixed 10- and 25-person caps on the applicants’ religious services, holding that the applicants made a strong showing that the scheme likely violated the Free Exercise Clause, that ongoing restrictions on worship inflicted irreparable First Amendment injury, and that equitable factors supported relief despite the pandemic and shifting zone classifications.


Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York, 141 S. Ct. 63, 592 U.S. 14 (2020)