For the Fifth Time, Supreme Court Rules Against California Health Restrictions in 'Shadow Docket' Hearing

For the fifth time, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with religious adherents and against California's COVID-19 restrictions.

In a ruling released last Friday night, the court barred the state from enforcing a rule that for now limits both religious and non-religious gatherings in homes to no more than three households.

While this regulation restricted both secular and non-secular activities, faith leaders worried that it would unfairly target small-scale religious gatherings, like Bible study groups.

"Meeting together at home is more than studying the Bible, it's more like a therapeutic healing process," said Jp Samuel, pastor at The Spectrum Church in San Jose.

Spectrum was one of the churches that sued state and local authorities last November in a separate case to bring down Santa Clara County's ban on indoor worship services. The Supreme Court ended up siding with the churches in that lawsuit as well.

Samuel applauds the Supreme Court's decision on this latest case and calls it "something that's really been long overdue." He cites the increase in mental health issues during the pandemic as another reason why small religious gatherings are needed.

"We understand the risks and enforce masks and social distancing," he said, "but just let people get together and have a therapeutic reconnecting with one another."

The court's unsigned order came on a 5-4 vote. Chief Justice John Roberts cast his lot with the dissenters, but failed to join their opinion. He noted simply that he would have left the lower court order intact.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because the state treated both secular and non-secular groups alike when it came to home gatherings, the state restriction was constitutional. The appeals court panel declined to temporarily block its own order pending appeal.

But even as home worshippers appealed to the Supreme Court, the state said it was in the process of modifying its rules as part of its ongoing process of easing restrictions by April 15.

None of that satisfied the Supreme Court majority, including Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and former President Donald Trump's three appointees, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

On Monday, Rory Little, professor at UC Hastings College of the Law, pointed out on KQED's Forum that this ruling was not part of the court's main docket of cases.

Instead, the court took it up as part of its "shadow docket" — cases processed rapidly because the court considers them an "emergency."

"These cases were decided without full briefing, without oral argument and without the normal considerations we give to constitutional issues," Little said.

He expressed concern that the court is making late-night types of rulings without regular court proceedings that may also impact secular activities.

Thanks to the ruling, non-religious gatherings with more than three households will also be permitted once again.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, noted that California had applied the same restrictions to both secular and non-secular gatherings. Kagan pointed out that just because the state does allow larger gatherings at hair salons and other retail venues does not invalidate the home gathering limit.

"The law does not require that the state equally treat apples and watermelons," Kagan wrote, noting that people remain for longer periods in private homes, tend to gather more closely and that homes do not typically have air purification systems or other protections that have been adopted by most businesses.

The majority "once more commands California to ignore its own experts' scientific findings, thus impairing the state's effort to address a public health emergency," Kagan said.

This post includes reporting from KQED's Raquel Maria Dillon and Carlos Cabrera-Lomelí.