The Supreme Court decision was issued without comment. But in his June decision against the church, US District Judge Richard Boulware wrote that other secular institutes involved in activities similar to a house of worship are also restricted. Other places with crowded audiences, such as museums, movie theaters, and concert halls, are subject to similar or stricter restrictions, he wrote.
“It is not sufficient for Calvary to demonstrate that the directive does not intermittently apply against secular activities,” Boulware wrote in his decision. “Calvary must also demonstrate that Defendants are only enforcing the directive against places of worship.”
He also rejected the comparison between houses of worship and casinos, noting that they operate differently and that casinos also remain restricted by important Covid-19-related regulations issued by the Nevada Gaming Control Board.
In May, the Supreme Court rejected a statement by a San Diego church that the California closure order was inhibiting their right to free religion. That decision also fell narrowly along ideological lines, with Roberts on the side of the liberal faction. Roberts argued against the court that it intervenes in states’ responses to a public health crisis.
“The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and factually intense matter subject to reasonable disagreement,” wrote Roberts at the time.
