Amicus Curiae Brief — Agudath Israel of America, et al., Applicants v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York
Supreme Court briefNov 17, 2020
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. 20A90
AGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA, AGUDATH ISRAEL OF KEW GARDEN HILLS,
AGUDATH ISRAEL OF MADISON, RABBI YISROEL REISMAN,
AND STEVEN SAPHIRSTEIN,
Applicants,
v.
ANDREW M. CUOMO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK,
Respondent.
On Emergency Application for Writ of Injunction to the Honorable
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
and Acting Circuit Justice for the Second Circuit
MOTION BY RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL-RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, WITH
ATTACHED PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
RESPONDENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY APPLICATION
FOR WRIT OF INJUNCTION, FOR LEAVE (1) TO FILE THE BRIEF , (2) TO
DO SO IN AN UNBOUND FORMAT ON 8½-BY-11-INCH PAPER, AND (3)
TO DO SO WITHOUT TEN DAYS’ ADVANCE NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
RICHARD B. KATSKEE
ALEX J. LUCHENITSER
Counsel of Record
SARAH R. GOETZ
Americans United for Separation of
Church and State
1310 L St. NW, Ste. 200
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 466-7306
luchenitser@au.org
Counsel for Amici Curiae
MOTION FOR LEAVE (1) TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF
RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL-RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF
RESPONDENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY APPLICATION
FOR WRIT OF INJUNCTION, (2) TO DO SO IN AN UNBOUND FORMAT
ON 8½-BY-11-INCH PAPER, AND (3) TO DO SO WITHOUT TEN DAYS’
ADVANCE NOTICE TO THE PARTIES1
Movants, religious and civil-rights organizations that share a commitment to
preserving the constitutional principles of religious freedom and the separation of
religion and government, respectfully request leave of the Court to (1) file the
attached amicus curiae brief in support of respondent and in opposition to applicants’
emergency application for a writ of injunction, (2) file the brief in an unbound format
on 8½-by-11-inch paper, and (3) file the brief without ten days’ advance notice to the
parties.
Positions of the Parties
Applicants consent to this motion. Respondent takes no position on this
motion.
Identities of Amici; Rule 29.6 Statement
All the proposed amici are nonprofit organizations that have no parent
corporations and that are not owned, in whole or in part, by any publicly held
corporation. The proposed amici are:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice.
Central Conference of American Rabbis.
No counsel for a party authored this motion or the proposed amicus brief in whole or in part, and no
person other than amici, their members, or their counsel made a monetary contribution to fund the
motion’s or brief’s preparation or submission.
1
1
Covenant Network of Presbyterians.
Disciples Center for Public Witness.
Disciples Justice Action Network.
Equal Partners in Faith.
General Synod of the United Church of Christ.
Interfaith Alliance Foundation.
Methodist Federation for Social Action.
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA.
Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association.
Union for Reform Judaism.
Interests of Amici; Summary of Brief2
Applicants contend that application of New York’s COVID-19-related publichealth restrictions to their religious gatherings violates the Free Exercise Clause of
the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The proposed brief would bring to the
Court’s attention the perspectives of other religious institutions and clergy on the
matter.
The brief explains that the proposed amici believe that the right to worship
freely is precious and should never be misused to cause harm. And this Court has
never mandated a religious exemption under the Free Exercise Clause when doing so
would inflict substantial harm on people beyond the individual or entity invoking the
2 The proposed brief is substantially similar to the brief submitted by the same proposed amici in
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, No. 20A87 (docketed Nov. 12, 2020). The primary
differences are in the factual discussion in Part B.2.
2
Clause. Yet granting the injunction requested by applicants would do exactly that.
The religious organizations among the proposed amici know from long experience
that in-person religious services inherently entail close and sustained human
interactions that present substantial risks of COVID-19 transmission—not only to
congregants, but also to people in the wider community. Measures that help control
the pandemic now will aid religious exercise by enabling safe resumption of regular
worship services sooner.
The brief further explains that this Court has never concluded that there was
discrimination against religion in violation of the Free Exercise Clause when
government drew distinctions—without antireligious animus—based on objective,
secular criteria. That is what New York has done here, relying on epidemiological
analysis tailored to the specific characteristics of activities and entities. Incorrectly
treating New York’s conduct as discriminatory and granting the injunction that
applicants request would harm religious institutions, their congregants, and religion
in general by linking them with, and causing them to be blamed for, the avoidable
suffering and death that would result from limiting New York’s efforts to thwart the
pandemic.
Format and Timing of Filing
Applicants filed their emergency application on November 16, 2020. In light of
the November 20, 2020 deadline that the proposed amici understand has been set for
responding to the application, there was insufficient time for the proposed amici to
prepare their brief for printing and filing in booklet form, as ordinarily required by
3
Supreme Court Rule 33.1. Nor, for the same reason, were the proposed amici able to
provide the parties with ten days’ notice of their intent to file the attached brief, as
ordinarily required by Rule 37.2(a). But the proposed amici did provide notice of their
intent to file the brief to the parties on the same evening that the emergency
application was publicly docketed.
*****
For the foregoing reasons, the proposed amici respectfully request that the
Court grant this motion to file the attached proposed amicus brief and accept it in the
format and at the time submitted.
Respectfully submitted.
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ____
RICHARD B. KATSKEE
ALEX J. LUCHENITSER
Counsel of Record
SARAH R. GOETZ
Americans United for Separation
of Church and State
1310 L St. NW, Ste. 200
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 466-7306
luchenitser@au.org
Counsel for Amici Curiae
NOVEMBER 2020
4
No. 20A90
AGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA, AGUDATH ISRAEL OF KEW GARDEN HILLS,
AGUDATH ISRAEL OF MADISON, RABBI YISROEL REISMAN,
AND STEVEN SAPHIRSTEIN,
Applicants,
v.
ANDREW M. CUOMO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK,
Respondent.
On Emergency Application for Writ of Injunction to the Honorable
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme
Court and Acting Circuit Justice for the Second Circuit
BRIEF OF RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL-RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS
AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
AND IN OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY APPLICATION
FOR WRIT OF INJUNCTION
RICHARD B. KATSKEE
ALEX J. LUCHENITSER
Counsel of Record
SARAH R. GOETZ
Americans United for
Separation of Church and
State
1310 L St. NW, Ste. 200
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 466-7306
luchenitser@au.org
Counsel for Amici Curiae
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................... ii
INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE........................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................... 3
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 5
A. The Free Exercise Clause does not require a religious exemption
here because granting one would gravely harm numerous people ................... 5
1. This Court has never granted an exemption under the
Free Exercise Clause when doing so would inflict substantial
harm on people beyond the applicant ........................................................... 5
2. Requiring a religious exemption from New York’s Order
would inflict severe harm on countless other people ................................... 9
B. New York’s Order does not discriminate against religion .............................. 13
1. Distinctions based on objective scientific analysis rather than
religious status or animus are not religious discrimination ...................... 13
2. New York’s Order is not motivated by antireligious animus and
does not discriminate against religious institutions based on status ....... 15
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 20
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Application of President & Dirs. of Georgetown Coll., Inc.,
331 F.2d 1000 (D.C. Cir. 1964)................................................................................. 7
Ashcroft v. ACLU,
542 U.S. 656 (2004) ................................................................................................ 12
Braunfeld v. Brown,
366 U.S. 599 (1961) ............................................................................................ 5, 14
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah,
508 U.S. 520 (1993) .......................................................................................... 13, 15
Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker,
962 F.3d 341 (7th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................. 19
Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue,
140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020) ...................................................................................... 13, 14
Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Mkt. of Mass., Inc.,
366 U.S. 617 (1961) ................................................................................................ 14
Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. Co. v. Husen,
95 U.S. 465 (1877) .................................................................................................... 6
Hernandez v. Commissioner,
490 U.S. 680 (1989) .......................................................................................... 14, 15
Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Evangelical Church & Sch. v. EEOC,
565 U.S. 171 (2012) .................................................................................................. 8
Jacobson v. Massachusetts,
197 U.S. 11 (1905) ................................................................................................ 6, 7
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n,
485 U.S. 439 (1988) .................................................................................................. 5
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado
Civil Rights Commission,
138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018) ...................................................................................... 13, 17
McDaniel v. Paty,
435 U.S. 618 (1978) ................................................................................................ 14
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. Morrissey-Berru,
140 S. Ct. 2049 (2020) .......................................................................................... 5, 8
Prince v. Massachusetts,
321 U.S. 158 (1944) .............................................................................................. 6, 7
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo,
No. 20A87 (docketed Nov. 12, 2020) ........................................................................ 3
Sherbert v. Verner,
374 U.S. 398 (1963) .............................................................................................. 7, 8
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer,
137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017) ...................................................................................... 13, 14
Two Guys From Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley,
366 U.S. 582 (1961) ................................................................................................ 14
United States v. Lee,
455 U.S. 252 (1982) .................................................................................................. 5
Wisconsin v. Yoder,
406 U.S. 205 (1972) .............................................................................................. 7, 8
Wright v. DeWitt Sch. Dist. No. 1,
385 S.W.2d 644 (Ark. 1965) ..................................................................................... 7
STATE ORDERS AND GUIDANCE
Executive Order 202.68 (Oct. 6, 2020) ............................................................ 16, 17, 19
Governor Cuomo Releases Guidelines on Testing Protocol for Schools to
Reopen in Red or Orange Micro-Cluster Zones (Oct. 30, 2020),
https://on.ny.gov/36lXqMX ..................................................................................... 19
N.Y. Dep’t of Health, Interim Guidance for Child Care and Day Camp
Programs During the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency (June 26,
2020), https://on.ny.gov/38OkPJO ......................................................................... 19
N.Y. Dep’t of Health, Interim Guidance for Food Services
During the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency
(Sept. 3, 2020), https://on.ny.gov/2HP9qhB........................................................... 17
N.Y. Dep’t of Health, Interim Guidance for Gyms & Fitness
Centers During the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency
(Aug. 17, 2020), https://on.ny.gov/3n5lGup ........................................................... 17
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
N.Y. Dep’t of Health, Interim Guidance for Hair Salons and
Barbershops During the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency
(July 1, 2020), https://on.ny.gov/35PzrFG ............................................................. 17
N.Y. Dep’t of Health, Interim Guidance for In-Person Instruction at
Pre-K to Grade 12 Schools During the Covid-19 Public Health
Emergency (Aug. 26, 2020), https://on.ny.gov/3kNIqgK ....................................... 19
N.Y. Dep’t of Health, Interim Guidance for Low-Risk Indoor Arts &
Entertainment During the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency
(June 23, 2020), https://on.ny.gov/3cIPmbQ .......................................................... 17
N.Y. Dep’t of Health, Interim Guidance for Professional
Sports Competitions with No Fans During the Covid-19 Public
Health Emergency (Sept. 11, 2020), https://on.ny.gov/3nfMPLk ......................... 17
New York Micro-Cluster Strategy (Oct. 21, 2020),
https://on.ny.gov/3mKAXzM .................................................................................. 15
MISCELLANEOUS
Alex Acquisto, This Central Kentucky Church Reopened on
May 10 and Became a COVID-19 Hot Spot, Lexington
Herald-Leader (June 6, 2020), https://bit.ly/3dDbQdq ......................................... 12
Christie Aschwanden, How ‘Superspreading’ Events Drive
Most COVID-19 Spread, Sci. Am. (June 23, 2020),
https://bit.ly/2Jkx71W .............................................................................................. 9
Trudy Balcom, COVID-19 Outbreak on the Navajo Nation
Linked to Church Rally, White Mountain Indep.
(Mar. 24, 2020), https://bit.ly/2YSR6di ............................................................ 10, 11
Lateshia Beachum, Two Churches Reclose After Faith
Leaders and Congregants Get Coronavirus, Wash. Post
(May 19, 2020), https://wapo.st/2WQgW0x ........................................................... 12
Kaitlin McKinley Becker, More Than 200 COVID-19 Cases Linked
to Fitchburg Church, NBC10 Boston (Nov. 7, 2020),
https://bit.ly/2GK6Tox .............................................................................................. 9
Stephanie Becker, At Least 70 People Infected with Coronavirus
Linked to a Single Church in California, Health Officials Say,
CNN (Apr. 4, 2020), https://cnn.it/2NgYN6l ......................................................... 10
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
Timothy Bella, Places Without Social Distancing Have 35 Times
More Potential Coronavirus Spread, Study Finds, Wash. Post
(May 15, 2020), https://wapo.st/2EKDjhd................................................................ 3
Bill Bostock, Nearly 100 People in Ohio Got Sick After One Man
Infected with the Coronavirus Attended a Church Service,
Business Insider (Aug. 6, 2020), https://bit.ly/2Qi2eeF .......................................... 9
Shelly Bradbury, Fatal COVID-19 Outbreak Linked to Colorado
Religious Group Suing State over Limits on Gatherings,
Denver Post (Oct. 6, 2020), https://dpo.st/3k5nHVl .............................................. 12
Minyvonne Burke, More than 100 Coronavirus Cases and
3 Deaths Linked to North Carolina Church Event,
NBC News (Oct. 23, 2020), https://nbcnews.to/3kyjNEN ....................................... 9
Ryan Burns, A Redding Megachurch Leader Came to Humboldt
and Flouted Mask Rules; Her Ministry Is Now the Source of a
Major COVID Outbreak, Lost Coast Outpost (Oct. 13, 2020),
https://bit.ly/3m86USh ........................................................................................... 10
Sara Cline, Church Tied to Oregon’s Largest Coronavirus Outbreak,
AP (June 16, 2020), https://bit.ly/2YWFlT1 ...................................................... 9, 10
Kate Conger et al., Churches Were Eager to Reopen; Now They Are
Confronting Coronavirus Cases, N.Y. Times (July 10, 2020),
https://nyti.ms/30BOhgq ........................................................................................ 12
COVID-19 Dashboard, Ctr. for Sys. Sci. & Eng’g at Johns Hopkins
Univ. (last visited Nov. 12, 2020), https://bit.ly/31VrTAa ...................................... 3
Deuteronomy 30:19–20 ................................................................................................ 20
Chris Epp, ‘I Would Do Anything for a Do-Over’: Calgary Church
Hopes Others Learn from Their Tragic COVID-19 Experience,
CTV News (May 11, 2020), https://bit.ly/3dLUv2l ................................................ 12
Hilda Flores, One-Third of COVID-19 Cases in Sac County
Tied to Church Gatherings, Officials Say, KCRA
(Apr. 1, 2020), https://bit.ly/2XlCpPu .................................................................... 10
Eric Grossarth, Idaho Falls Church Revival Leads to 30 Confirmed
or Probable Cases of Coronavirus, Idaho Statesman (June 4, 2020),
https://bit.ly/3hZQnyI ............................................................................................. 10
v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
Allison James et al., High COVID-19 Attack Rate Among Attendees
at Events at a Church—Arkansas, March 2020,
69 Morbidity & Mortality Wkly. Rep. 632 (2020),
https://bit.ly/3f6MYM2 ........................................................................................... 10
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch. of Pub. Health Ctr. for Health Sec.,
Public Health Principles for a Phased Reopening During
COVID-19: Guidance for Governors (Apr. 17, 2020),
https://bit.ly/2CKc5qz ............................................................................................. 18
Lauren Leatherby, United States Records Its Worst Week Yet
for Virus Cases, N.Y. Times (Oct. 30, 2020),
https://nyti.ms/2HOP2Ng ......................................................................................... 3
T.Y.M. Leung et al., Short- and Potential Long-term Adverse
Health Outcomes of COVID-19: A Rapid Review,
9 Emerging Microbes & Infections 2190 (2020),
https://bit.ly/3ikjBXJ ................................................................................................ 3
Bailey Loosemore & Mandy McLaren, How a Church Revival in a
Small Kentucky Town Led to a Deadly Coronavirus Outbreak,
Louisville Courier-Journal (Apr. 3, 2020), https://bit.ly/2V1Jjrs ......................... 10
Wyatt Massey, Church of God Denomination Facing Significant
COVID-19 Outbreak; Leaders Won’t Say How Many Infected,
Chattanooga Times Free Press (July 7, 2020),
https://bit.ly/3bTiWLl ............................................................................................. 10
Nakia McNabb, At Least 18 West Virginia Covid-19 Outbreaks
Linked to Church Services, Governor Says, CNN
(Oct. 19, 2020), https://cnn.it/31CLODY.................................................................. 9
Rachel Needham, Anatomy of an Outbreak: New Documents
Reveal a Significant Number of the County’s COVID-19 Cases
Can Be Traced to Castleton Church, Rappahannock News
(Sept. 1, 2020), https://bit.ly/33hLAlG ................................................................... 10
Psalms 115:17 .............................................................................................................. 20
John Raby, Virus Outbreak Grows to 28 Cases at West Virginia
Church, AP (June 15, 2020), https://bit.ly/30WTqBm .......................................... 10
Richard Read, A Choir Decided to Go Ahead with Rehearsal;
Now Dozens of Members Have COVID-19 and Two Are Dead,
L.A. Times (Mar. 29, 2020), https://lat.ms/2yiLbU6 ............................................. 12
vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
Lee Roop, A Small Alabama Church Had a Revival and Now
40 People Have Coronavirus, AL.com (July 27, 2020),
https://bit.ly/2Ekzsav.............................................................................................. 10
Joe Severino, COVID-19 Tore Through a Black Baptist
Church Community in WV; Nobody Said a Word About It,
Charleston Gazette-Mail (May 2, 2020), https://bit.ly/2SFVYyX ......................... 11
Renyi Zhang et al., Identifying Airborne Transmission
as the Dominant Route for the Spread of COVID-19,
117 PNAS 14,857 (2020), https://bit.ly/2HTGSnf.................................................. 11
vii
BRIEF OF RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL-RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS
AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT AND IN OPPOSITION
TO EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF INJUNCTION
INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE1
Amici are religious and civil-rights organizations that share a commitment to
preserving the constitutional principles of religious freedom and the separation of
religion and government. They believe that the right to worship freely is precious and
should never be misused to cause harm.
Amici include religious organizations that recommend against holding inperson worship at this time, even if allowed under state law, as many of their
constituent members (including congregations and faith leaders) recognize that doing
so under current conditions is dangerous. The religious organizations among amici
know from long experience that in-person religious services inherently entail close
and sustained human interactions that present substantial risks of COVID-19
transmission—not only to congregants, but also to people in the wider community.
Measures that help control the pandemic now will aid religious exercise by enabling
safe resumption of regular worship services sooner. Applying to religious services
religion-neutral restrictions that govern all large gatherings protects the public
health and respects the Constitution.
1 No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than amici, their
members, or their counsel made a monetary contribution to fund the brief’s preparation or submission.
This brief has been submitted with an unopposed motion for leave to file it.
1
The amici are:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice.
Central Conference of American Rabbis.
Covenant Network of Presbyterians.
Disciples Center for Public Witness.
Disciples Justice Action Network.
Equal Partners in Faith.
General Synod of the United Church of Christ.
Interfaith Alliance Foundation.
Methodist Federation for Social Action.
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA.
Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association.
Union for Reform Judaism.
2
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 2
The country is in the midst of a devastating pandemic. More than 247,000
Americans, including more than 34,000 New Yorkers, have died from COVID-19. See
COVID-19 Dashboard, Ctr. for Sys. Sci. & Eng’g at Johns Hopkins Univ. (last visited
Nov. 16, 2020), https://bit.ly/31VrTAa. There is increasing evidence that a substantial
proportion of people who survive the disease suffer serious, long-term damage to their
health. See, e.g., T.Y.M. Leung et al., Short- and Potential Long-term Adverse Health
Outcomes of COVID-19: A Rapid Review, 9 Emerging Microbes & Infections 2190
(2020), https://bit.ly/3ikjBXJ. And across the country, the rates of infection are
surging higher than ever. See, e.g., Lauren Leatherby, United States Records Its
Worst Week Yet for Virus Cases, N.Y. Times (Oct. 30, 2020), https://nyti.ms/2HOP2Ng.
In response to this ongoing public-health emergency, New York’s governor
issued an Executive Order that restricts gatherings by establishing capacity limits
based on the severity of the outbreak in different geographical areas. Similar
restrictions on gatherings have been successful in slowing the transmission of the
virus. See, e.g., Timothy Bella, Places Without Social Distancing Have 35 Times More
Potential Coronavirus Spread, Study Finds, Wash. Post (May 15, 2020),
https://wapo.st/2EKDjhd. And though New York’s Order restricts the size of worship
services, nonreligious gatherings are restricted to a greater extent.
2 This brief is substantially similar to the brief submitted by the same amici in Roman Catholic Diocese
of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, No. 20A87 (docketed Nov. 12, 2020). The primary differences are in the factual
discussion in Part B.2.
3
Applicants nevertheless seek a broader religious exemption from the Order
under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. But this Court has never
mandated a religious exemption when doing so would inflict substantial harm on
people beyond the individual or entity invoking the Clause. Exempting religious
gatherings from New York’s Order would do exactly that: A contagious person at a
religious service could infect fellow congregants, who may then expose family, friends,
and strangers, including numerous people who did not attend the event.
Nor has this Court ever concluded that there was discrimination against
religion in violation of the Free Exercise Clause when government drew distinctions
that were based not on hostility to religion but on legitimate, objective, secular
criteria. New York has not acted with antireligious animus here. On the contrary,
New York’s Order restricts religious gatherings less than comparable nonreligious
gatherings. And as the district court found, New York has legitimate, science-based
reasons for treating large gatherings such as worship services, lectures, and concerts
differently from operation of grocery stores and factories.
The Court should not deviate from these settled principles of free-exercise law,
particularly in the context of a request for an emergency injunction, when the Court
does not have full merits briefing and the opportunity to give due consideration to the
legal questions in the normal course. Not only would granting the injunction that
applicants request inflict great harm on the many people who would become ill and
die as a result, but this misuse of the precious right of religious freedom would also
4
harm religious institutions, their congregants, and religion in general by linking
them with, and causing them to be blamed for, avoidable suffering and death.
ARGUMENT
A.
The Free Exercise Clause does not require a religious exemption
here because granting one would gravely harm numerous
people.
1.
This Court has never granted an exemption under the Free
Exercise Clause when doing so would inflict substantial harm on
people beyond the applicant.
The freedom to worship is a value of the highest order; and many people
naturally seek the comfort and support provided by faith communities in these
difficult times. But as this Court recently reaffirmed, the constitutional guarantee of
religious freedom “does not mean that religious institutions enjoy a general immunity
from secular laws.” Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S. Ct. 2049,
2060 (2020). For “government simply could not operate if it were required to satisfy
every citizen’s religious needs and desires.” Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery
Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439, 452 (1988).
The Court has thus repeatedly rejected free-exercise claims for religious
exemptions that would impose significant harms on third parties. In United States v.
Lee, for example, the Court denied an Amish employer’s request for an exemption
from paying Social Security taxes because the exemption would have “operate[d] to
impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.” 455 U.S. 252, 261 (1982). In
Braunfeld v. Brown, the Court declined to grant an exemption from Sunday-closing
laws because it would have provided Jewish businesses with “an economic advantage
over their competitors who must remain closed on that day.” 366 U.S. 599, 608–609
5
(1961) (plurality opinion). And in Prince v. Massachusetts, the Court denied a request
for an exemption from child-labor laws to allow distribution of religious literature by
minors, because while “[p]arents may be free to become martyrs themselves * * * it
does not follow [that] they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of
their children.” 321 U.S. 158, 170 (1944). In short, as Justice Jackson separately
explained in Prince, “the limits [on religious exercise] begin to operate whenever
activities begin to affect or collide with liberties of others or of the public.” Id. at 177
(Jackson, J., concurring in the judgment).
In keeping with this jurisprudence, the Court has repeatedly acknowledged
that there is no right to religious exemptions from laws that, like New York’s Order,
shield the public from illness. More than a century ago, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts,
197 U.S. 11, 25 (1905), the Court upheld a mandatory-vaccination law aimed at
stopping the spread of smallpox. The Court explained that “[r]eal liberty for all could
not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each
individual person to use his own [liberty] * * * regardless of the injury that may be
done to others.” See id. at 26. The Court straightforwardly rejected the view that the
Constitution bars compulsory measures to protect health, recognizing instead the
“fundamental principle” that personal liberty is subject to restraint “in order to secure
the * * * health * * * of the state.” Id. at 26 (quoting Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. Co.
v. Husen, 95 U.S. 465, 471 (1877)). Because “a community has the right to protect
itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members,”
6
individual rights are defined and conditioned so as to ensure that government may
implement reasonable restrictions to protect the public health. Id. at 27.
Although Jacobson did not specifically consider a Free Exercise Clause
argument, perhaps because the Clause was not then applicable against the States,
several of the Court’s subsequent decisions have recognized that the principles of the
case apply in the free-exercise context as in all others. In Prince, for example, the
Court explained that one “cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination * * * on
religious grounds.” 321 U.S. at 166. For the “right to practice religion freely does not
include liberty to expose the community * * * to communicable disease.” Id. at 166–
167. In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402–403 (1963), the Court, citing Jacobson
and Prince, noted that it “has rejected challenges under the Free Exercise Clause to
governmental regulation of certain overt acts prompted by religious beliefs or
principles” when “[t]he conduct or actions so regulated have invariably posed some
substantial threat to public safety, peace or order.” And in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406
U.S. 205, 230 & n.20 (1972), the Court illustrated the principle that free-exercise
claims are denied when “harm to the physical or mental health * * * or to the public
safety, peace, order, or welfare has been demonstrated or may be properly inferred,”
with citations to a case rejecting a free-exercise challenge to a mandatory-vaccination
law (Wright v. DeWitt Sch. Dist. No. 1, 385 S.W.2d 644 (Ark. 1965)), a case rejecting
an attempt to use the Free Exercise Clause to block a lifesaving blood transfusion
(Application of President & Dirs. of Georgetown Coll., Inc., 331 F.2d 1000, 1007–1010
(D.C. Cir. 1964) (Wright, J., in chambers)), and Jacobson.
7
Except in one special context described in the next paragraph, the Court has
ruled in favor of Free Exercise Clause claimants only after confirming that no
substantial harm would be imposed on others. For instance, in holding that Amish
parents were entitled to an exemption from a compulsory-school-attendance law in
Yoder, the Court explained that “[t]he record strongly indicate[d] that accommodating
the religious objections of the Amish * * * will not impair the physical or mental
health of the child * * * or in any other way materially detract from the welfare of
society.” 406 U.S. at 234. Similarly, in holding that the Free Exercise Clause
prohibited the state in Sherbert from denying unemployment benefits to a SeventhDay Adventist because of her refusal to work on her Sabbath, the Court noted that
its ruling would not “serve to abridge any other person’s religious liberties” (374 U.S.
at 409) or otherwise significantly harm anyone (see id. at 406–409).
Only in cases concerning the ministerial exception—which recognize that the
Establishment
and
Free
Exercise
Clauses
together
prohibit
employment-
discrimination laws from being enforced in a manner that would interfere with a
church’s selection of ministerial employees—has the Court ever mandated a religious
exemption that would inflict meaningful harm on nonbeneficiaries (there, the
employees who lose their jobs). See Our Lady of Guadalupe, 140 S. Ct. at 2055;
Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Evangelical Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 188
(2012). Those cases concerned core decisions of religious institutions that affect only
their internal structures and the people who voluntarily choose to join them. See
Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 188 (“[T]he Free Exercise Clause * * * protects a
8
religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments.”).
This case presents a far different question: whether there is a constitutional right to
put countless people outside the congregation at greater risk of exposure to deadly
disease.
2.
Requiring a religious exemption from New York’s Order would
inflict severe harm on countless other people.
Exempting applicants from New York’s emergency public-health measures
would subject not only their congregants but also everyone with whom they come into
contact—indeed, their entire communities—to serious and sometimes-fatal health
risks.
Indoor gatherings that bring together large groups of people for extended
periods are responsible for a substantial proportion of the spread of COVID-19. See,
e.g., Christie Aschwanden, How ‘Superspreading’ Events Drive Most COVID-19
Spread, Sci. Am. (June 23, 2020), https://bit.ly/2Jkx71W. And religious gatherings,
specifically, have led to numerous outbreaks and deaths. See, e.g., Nakia McNabb, At
Least 18 West Virginia Covid-19 Outbreaks Linked to Church Services, Governor
Says, CNN (Oct. 19, 2020), https://cnn.it/31CLODY; Kaitlin McKinley Becker, More
Than 200 COVID-19 Cases Linked to Fitchburg Church, NBC10 Boston (Nov. 7,
2020), https://bit.ly/2GK6Tox; Minyvonne Burke, More than 100 Coronavirus Cases
and 3 Deaths Linked to North Carolina Church Event, NBC News (Oct. 23, 2020),
https://nbcnews.to/3kyjNEN; Bill Bostock, Nearly 100 People in Ohio Got Sick After
One Man Infected with the Coronavirus Attended a Church Service, Business Insider
(Aug. 6, 2020), https://bit.ly/2Qi2eeF; Sara Cline, Church Tied to Oregon’s Largest
9
Coronavirus Outbreak, AP (June 16, 2020), https://bit.ly/2YWFlT1; Hilda Flores, OneThird of COVID-19 Cases in Sac County Tied to Church Gatherings, Officials Say,
KCRA (Apr. 1, 2020), https://bit.ly/2XlCpPu; Allison James et al., High COVID-19
Attack Rate Among Attendees at Events at a Church—Arkansas, March 2020, 69
Morbidity & Mortality Wkly. Rep. 632 (2020), https://bit.ly/3f6MYM2; Stephanie
Becker, At Least 70 People Infected with Coronavirus Linked to a Single Church in
California, Health Officials Say, CNN (Apr. 4, 2020), https://cnn.it/2NgYN6l; Lee
Roop, A Small Alabama Church Had a Revival and Now 40 People Have Coronavirus,
AL.com (July 27, 2020), https://bit.ly/2Ekzsav; Eric Grossarth, Idaho Falls Church
Revival Leads to 30 Confirmed or Probable Cases of Coronavirus, Idaho Statesman
(June 4, 2020), https://bit.ly/3hZQnyI; John Raby, Virus Outbreak Grows to 28 Cases
at West Virginia Church, AP (June 15, 2020), https://bit.ly/30WTqBm; Rachel
Needham, Anatomy of an Outbreak: New Documents Reveal a Significant Number of
the County’s COVID-19 Cases Can Be Traced to Castleton Church, Rappahannock
News (Sept. 1, 2020), https://bit.ly/33hLAlG; Wyatt Massey, Church of God
Denomination Facing Significant COVID-19 Outbreak; Leaders Won’t Say How Many
Infected, Chattanooga Times Free Press (July 7, 2020), https://bit.ly/3bTiWLl; Ryan
Burns, A Redding Megachurch Leader Came to Humboldt and Flouted Mask Rules;
Her Ministry Is Now the Source of a Major COVID Outbreak, Lost Coast Outpost (Oct.
13, 2020), https://bit.ly/3m86USh; Bailey Loosemore & Mandy McLaren, How a
Church Revival in a Small Kentucky Town Led to a Deadly Coronavirus Outbreak,
Louisville Courier-Journal (Apr. 3, 2020), https://bit.ly/2V1Jjrs; Trudy Balcom,
10
COVID-19 Outbreak on the Navajo Nation Linked to Church Rally, White Mountain
Indep. (Mar. 24, 2020), https://bit.ly/2YSR6di; Joe Severino, COVID-19 Tore Through
a Black Baptist Church Community in WV; Nobody Said a Word About It, Charleston
Gazette-Mail (May 2, 2020), https://bit.ly/2SFVYyX.
As these examples show, a single unwitting carrier at a large worship service
can cause a ripple effect not just within the congregation, which alone would be tragic,
but also throughout an entire community: The one infected person may pass the virus
to his neighbors in the pews, who may then return home and pass it to their family
members, including people at high risk of severe illness. Those infected family
members may then expose others, who may do the same to their families—and so on.
And the more people who get sick, the more strain is placed on the hospital system,
and the greater the chance that people die because of insufficient healthcare
resources. The Free Exercise Clause has never been thought to require religious
exemptions for conduct that threatens so much harm to so many.
It is no answer to argue that spread of the virus might be reduced to some
extent through means short of restrictions on the size of gatherings, such as physicaldistancing requirements and sanitation measures. Though such measures are
certainly a good idea and can bolster the effectiveness of capacity restrictions,
airborne transmission of COVID-19 can render even rigorous physical-distancing and
cleaning measures inadequate. See, e.g., Renyi Zhang et al., Identifying Airborne
Transmission as the Dominant Route for the Spread of COVID-19, 117 PNAS 14,857
(2020), https://bit.ly/2HTGSnf. Outbreaks of the virus have thus been traced to
11
religious gatherings that employed physical-distancing and other safety precautions.
See, e.g., Shelly Bradbury, Fatal COVID-19 Outbreak Linked to Colorado Religious
Group Suing State over Limits on Gatherings, Denver Post (Oct. 6, 2020),
https://dpo.st/3k5nHVl; Kate Conger et al., Churches Were Eager to Reopen; Now
They
Are
Confronting
Coronavirus
Cases,
N.Y.
Times
(July
10,
2020),
https://nyti.ms/30BOhgq; Lateshia Beachum, Two Churches Reclose After Faith
Leaders and Congregants Get Coronavirus, Wash. Post (May 19, 2020),
https://wapo.st/2WQgW0x; Alex Acquisto, This Central Kentucky Church Reopened
on May 10 and Became a COVID-19 Hot Spot, Lexington Herald-Leader (June 6,
2020), https://bit.ly/3dDbQdq; Richard Read, A Choir Decided to Go Ahead with
Rehearsal; Now Dozens of Members Have COVID-19 and Two Are Dead, L.A. Times
(Mar. 29, 2020), https://lat.ms/2yiLbU6; Chris Epp, ‘I Would Do Anything for a DoOver’: Calgary Church Hopes Others Learn from Their Tragic COVID-19 Experience,
CTV News (May 11, 2020), https://bit.ly/3dLUv2l.
Even when this Court subjects governmental conduct to a compelling-interest
test, it does not require the state to accept “proposed alternatives” if they “will not be
as effective” in achieving the state’s goal. See Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 665
(2004). And as the litany of examples of church-related outbreaks above reflects,
permitting indoor mass gatherings with social-distancing and the like is simply not
as effective at reducing the transmission of COVID-19 as is strictly limiting the size
of those events. The Court should not second-guess the measures that New York has
12
implemented, based on scientific data and public-health expertise, to protect its
residents’ health and lives.
B.
New York’s Order does not discriminate against religion.
1.
Distinctions based on objective scientific analysis rather than
religious status or animus are not religious discrimination.
The Free Exercise Clause “‘protects religious observers against unequal
treatment’ and against ‘laws that impose special disabilities on the basis of religious
status.’” Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2254 (2020) (quoting
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012, 2021 (2017)).
Thus, the Court has recognized religious discrimination when governmental action is
based on religious status or is otherwise motivated by sectarian or antireligious
animus. By contrast, this Court has never held that government discriminates
against religion in violation of the Free Exercise Clause when it draws distinctions
and acts based on objective, secular criteria, even if its actions incidentally burden
religious practice along with other regulated conduct.
For example, in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508
U.S. 520, 542 (1993), the Court struck down a set of local ordinances prohibiting
animal sacrifice, because they “had as their object the suppression of religion,” having
been “gerrymandered with care to proscribe religious killings of animals but to
exclude almost all secular killings.” In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil
Rights Commission, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 1729 (2018), the Court set aside a decision of a
state commission that a baker had violated a civil-rights law by refusing for religious
reasons to bake a cake for a wedding of a same-sex couple, because the commission’s
13
statements and conduct had demonstrated “a clear and impermissible hostility
toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated [the baker’s] objection.” In
Espinoza and Trinity Lutheran, the Court held that the Free Exercise Clause
prohibited states from excluding religious institutions from eligibility for state
funding programs “solely because of religious status.” Espinoza, 140 S. Ct. at 2255;
accord Trinity Lutheran, 137 S. Ct. at 2019–2021. And in McDaniel v. Paty, the Court
ruled that prohibiting a minister from seeking public office solely because of his
status as a member of the clergy violated the Free Exercise Clause. 435 U.S. 618, 629
(1978) (plurality opinion); accord id. at 629–630 (Brennan, J., concurring in the
judgment).
On the other hand, the Court has never concluded that there was religious
discrimination or animus in violation of the Free Exercise Clause just because a law
has some exemptions, drawn on objective grounds unrelated to religion, but does not
also contain an exemption for religious conduct or institutions. For example, in its
cases upholding Sunday-closing laws, the Court concluded that Jewish shopkeepers
who must close on Saturdays for observance of their Sabbath were not entitled to a
religious exemption entitling them to stay open on Sundays, even though the laws
contained many exemptions—delineated on nonreligious lines—for various kinds of
businesses and institutions. See Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Mkt. of Mass., Inc.,
366 U.S. 617, 619–620, 631 (1961) (plurality opinion); Braunfeld, 366 U.S. at 600–
601, 609 (plurality opinion); Two Guys From Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley,
366 U.S. 582, 585 (1961). And in Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 700
14
(1989), the Court declined to require that payments made to a religious group for
spiritual-training sessions be deductible under the Internal Revenue Code, despite
provisions in the Code for numerous other kinds of deductions and exemptions.
As the Court explained in Lukumi, “[a]ll laws are selective to some extent.” 508
U.S. at 542. Impermissible “inequality results” under the Free Exercise Clause “when
a legislature decides that the governmental interests it seeks to advance are worthy
of being pursued only against conduct with a religious motivation.” Id. at 542–543
(emphasis added). In other words, “government, in pursuit of legitimate interests,
cannot in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious
belief.” Id. at 543 (emphasis added). But it can, and inevitably does, impose some
burdens that affect religious practices along with other activities without being guilty
of invidious religious discrimination.
2.
New York’s Order is not motivated by antireligious animus and
does not discriminate against religious institutions based on
status.
Here, the distinctions in New York’s Order are based on objective public-health
criteria. The Order is not motivated by religious animus. Nor does it discriminate
against religious institutions or individuals based on status.
The district court here correctly rejected applicants’ allegations of animus
against Orthodox Jews, finding that the boundaries of the geographical zones that
are subject to heightened restrictions are based on “the epidemiological data.” App.
57; see also App. 59, 61–62, 67; New York Micro-Cluster Strategy (Oct. 21, 2020),
https://on.ny.gov/3mKAXzM. And though Governor Cuomo made factual statements
recognizing that the Order’s restrictions would turn out to impose significant burdens
15
on the Orthodox Jewish community, because the zones with the highest rates of
infections include a number of locales with substantial Orthodox Jewish populations,
the district court correctly found that there was “no evidence that these comments
reflect an animus for those Orthodox Jewish communities or deliberate imposition of
a requirement directed at thwarting the religious practices of the Orthodox Jewish
community.” App. 74; see also App. 58, 66–68. Identification of virus hot spots that
correlate with Orthodox Jewish communities is not evidence that the State is acting
with animus toward those communities; and neither is the Governor’s recognition of
unfortunate effects on them from the limitations necessary to protect the health of
everyone—including, most immediately and obviously, the members of the
communities themselves.
The lack of religious bias or animus is further confirmed by the provisions of
the Order itself, which restrict religious services less than comparable nonreligious
activities. In high-severity “red” zones, religious services are allowed but limited to
the smaller of twenty-five percent of building capacity or ten people. See Executive
Order 202.68 (Oct. 6, 2020). By contrast, all nonessential gatherings are prohibited
in the red zones; all nonessential businesses are barred from conducting in-person
operations; and all in-restaurant dining is prohibited. See ibid. In moderate-severity
“orange” zones, houses of worship are permitted to hold gatherings of the lesser of
one-third of building capacity or twenty-five people, while nonessential gatherings
are limited to ten people, businesses such as gyms and salons continue to be
prohibited from conducting in-person operations, and dining at restaurants is allowed
16
only outside and is limited to four people per table. See ibid. In precautionary “yellow”
zones, houses of worship are allowed to have gatherings of up to half their building
capacity, while nonessential gatherings are limited to twenty-five people, salons are
limited to half capacity, gyms are limited to one-third capacity, and restaurants are
limited to half capacity and prohibited from seating more than four people at a table. 3
And concerts, live theatrical performances, and professional sporting events with
spectators in attendance are flatly barred in all zones and indeed throughout the
entire State.4
Applicants point out that certain retail and manufacturing businesses are not
subject to the same restrictions as those that apply to houses of worship. But the
State has articulated a “principled rationale for the difference in treatment”
(Masterpiece, 138 S. Ct. at 1731)—namely, the different public-health risks posed by
different categories of activities. And the district court, as factfinder, has credited the
State’s rationale. App. 71–73.
Take grocery and retail stores, for example. Public-health experts have
concluded that stores pose much less risk of transmission of COVID-19 than do
gatherings such as worship services, in part because customers’ interactions with
3 See ibid.; N.Y. Dep’t of Health, Interim Guidance for Gyms & Fitness Centers During the Covid-19
Public Health Emergency 3, 5 (Aug. 17, 2020), https://on.ny.gov/3n5lGup; N.Y. Dep’t of Health, Interim
Guidance for Hair Salons and Barbershops During the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency 3, 4 (July
1, 2020), https://on.ny.gov/35PzrFG; N.Y. Dep’t of Health, Interim Guidance for Food Services During
the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency 3, 4 (Sept. 3, 2020), https://on.ny.gov/2HP9qhB.
4 See N.Y. Dep’t of Health, Interim Guidance for Low-Risk Indoor Arts & Entertainment During the
Covid-19 Public Health Emergency 1 (June 23, 2020), https://on.ny.gov/3cIPmbQ; N.Y. Dep’t of Health,
Interim Guidance for Professional Sports Competitions with No Fans During the Covid-19 Public
Health Emergency 3 (Sept. 11, 2020), https://on.ny.gov/3nfMPLk.
17
others at stores are generally transient, while attendees at large gatherings may sit
near an infectious person for long periods and thus suffer exposure to a much greater
amount of the virus. See Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch. of Pub. Health Ctr. for
Health Sec., Public Health Principles for a Phased Reopening During COVID-19:
Guidance for Governors 12, 16 (Apr. 17, 2020), https://bit.ly/2CKc5qz. In addition, as
the district court found, stores do not involve masses of individuals arriving and
departing simultaneously. App. 72.
Nor are factories and offices comparable to religious services. Like retail
operations, these institutions generally do not involve large groups arriving and
departing together or congregating and intermingling en masse for long periods while
speaking, singing, and chanting. See ibid. Moreover, factories and offices are not open
to members of the public generally but instead are typically occupied by the same set
of employees from day to day. Employers thus have greater control over their
employees’ adherence to safety and health precautions; and contact tracing in the
event of an outbreak is substantially easier among a closed group of known
employees. Also, factories cannot be operated remotely; and shutting down
manufacturing threatens the availability of food, medication, and other goods that
are themselves crucial to maintaining the public health.
Additionally, applicants point to schools’ and childcare providers’ being
allowed to open. But schools are subject to extensive restrictions that do not apply to
houses of worship, including mandatory testing of students and staff and
requirements that students be kept in small cohorts that do not interact with each
18
other.5 Similarly, childcare providers are required to conduct daily health screenings
of children and employees and to keep children in isolated groups of no more than
fifteen.6 Tailoring public-health rules to the particular contexts and populations at
issue is not discrimination but government doing the work that it should. Moreover,
religious schools and childcare providers are subject to the same rules as their secular
counterparts,
further
underscoring
that
New
York’s
restrictions
are
nondiscriminatory.
As Judge Easterbrook explained in upholding restrictions in Illinois that were
similar to New York’s, “worship services * * * seem most like other congregate
functions that occur in auditoriums, such as concerts and movies,” all of which “put[ ]
members of multiple families close to one another for extended periods, while
invisible droplets containing the virus may linger in the air.” Elim Romanian
Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, 962 F.3d 341, 346 (7th Cir. 2020), petition for cert.
docketed, No. 20-569 (Oct. 30, 2020). Because New York’s Order restricts religious
worship less than these kinds of comparable activities, it cannot be said to
discriminate against religion.
5 See Executive Order 202.68; Governor Cuomo Releases Guidelines on Testing Protocol for Schools to
Reopen in Red or Orange Micro-Cluster Zones (Oct. 30, 2020), https://on.ny.gov/36lXqMX; N.Y. Dep’t
of Health, Interim Guidance for In-Person Instruction at Pre-K to Grade 12 Schools During the Covid19 Public Health Emergency 2 (Aug. 26, 2020), https://on.ny.gov/3kNIqgK.
6 N.Y. Dep’t of Health, Interim Guidance for Child Care and Day Camp Programs During the Covid-
19 Public Health Emergency 3, 6, 7, 12–14 (June 26, 2020), https://on.ny.gov/38OkPJO.
19
CONCLUSION
If there is one belief widely held among the diverse faiths that Americans hold,
it is the great value that they place on human life. E.g., Deuteronomy 30:19–20. The
precious right to worship freely should not be misapplied in a manner that
contributes to the spread of disease, suffering, and death. For to do so would defeat
the very purpose of that right: “The dead cannot praise the Lord.” Psalms 115:17.
New York has carefully drawn distinctions based on objective public-healthbased considerations, while at the same time showing special solicitude—not
disfavor—for religious institutions and their worship services. In doing so, the State
is ensuring that after the pandemic is brought under control many more New Yorkers
will be alive, healthy, and able to engage in activity that gives their lives meaning,
be that worship or other pursuits. Especially in the context of an emergency
proceeding such as this one, this Court should not second-guess New York’s
scientifically grounded distinctions and the factual findings of the district court.
The application for an emergency injunction should be denied.
20
Respectfully submitted.
________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ____
RICHARD B. KATSKEE
ALEX J. LUCHENITSER
Counsel of Record
SARAH R. GOETZ
Americans United for Separation
of Church and State
1310 L St. NW, Ste. 200
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 466-7306
luchenitser@au.org
Counsel for Amici Curiae
NOVEMBER 2020
21
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.