Cite as: 592 U. S. ____ (2020) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 20A87 _________________ ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK v. ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [November 25,2020] PER CURIAM. The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE BREYER and by him referred to the Court is granted. Re- spondent is enjoined from enforcing Executive Order 202.68’s 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on applicant pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be de- nied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. ****** This emergency application and another, Agudath Israel of America, et al. v. Cuomo, No. 20A90, present the same issue, and this opinion addresses both cases. Both applications seek relief from an Executive Order is- sued by the Governor of New York that imposes very severe restrictions on attendance at religious services in areas classified as “red” or “orange” zones. In red zones, no more than 10 persons may attend each religious service, and in orange zones, attendance is capped at 25. The two applica- tions, one filed by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the other by Agudath Israel of America and affiliated 2 ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN v. CUOMO Per Curiam entities, contend that these restrictions violate the Free Ex- ercise Clause of the First Amendment, and they ask us to enjoin enforcement of the restrictions while they pursue ap- pellate review. Citing a variety of remarks made by the Governor, Agudath Israel argues that the Governor specif- ically targeted the Orthodox Jewish community and gerry- mandered the boundaries of red and orange zones to ensure that heavily Orthodox areas were included. Both the Dio- cese and Agudath Israel maintain that the regulations treat houses of worship much more harshly than comparable sec- ular facilities. And they tell us without contradiction that they have complied with all public health guidance, have implemented additional precautionary measures, and have operated at 25% or 33% capacity for months without a sin- gle outbreak. The applicants have clearly established their entitlement to relief pending appellate review. They have shown that their First Amendment claims are likely to prevail, that denying them relief would lead to irreparable injury, and that granting relief would not harm the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 20 (2008). Because of the need to issue an order promptly, we provide only a brief summary of the reasons why immediate relief is essential. Likelihood of success on the merits. The applicants have made a strong showing that the challenged restrictions vi- olate “the minimum requirement of neutrality” ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals