No. 20A90

In the

Supreme ourt of the United States

 A 

GUDATH

I

SRAEL OF

 A 

MERICA 

,

 

et al.,

 Applicants

,

 V

.  A 

NDREW

M.

 

C

UOMO

,

 

Governor of New York,

Respondent.

 

OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF INJUNCTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT

November 20, 2020 L

ETITIA

J

 AMES

 

 Attorney General State of New York

B

 ARBARA

D.

 

U

NDERWOOD

*

Solicitor General

 A 

NDREA

O

SER

 

 Deputy Solicitor General

D

USTIN

J.

 

B

ROCKNER

 B

RIAN

D.

 

G

INSBERG

 

 Assistant Solicitors General

28 Liberty Street New York, New York 10005 (212) 416-8020 barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov *Counsel of Record

Counsel for Respondent

 

 

i

QUESTION PRESENTED BY APPLICANTS’ REQUEST IN THE  ALTERNATIVE FOR CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT

To address recent surges in new COVID-19 infections in geographic micro-areas in the State of New York, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.68, which imposes numerical limits on gatherings, but treats gatherings in houses of worship more favorably than comparable activities of a secular nature.  Applicants allege that Executive Order 202.68 violates their rights under the First  Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The question presented is: Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of Executive Order 202.68’s provisions relating to houses of worship.

 

 

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... iii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................................... 2  A. The COVID-19 Pandemic and the State’s Early Response .................... 3 B. Executive Order 202.68’s “Cluster Action Initiative” ............................. 6 C. The Litigation Underlying This Application ......................................... 12 1. Proceedings in the District Court ............................................... 12 2. Proceedings in the Court of Appeals ........................................... 14  ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................ 17 I. A 

GUDATH

I

SRAEL

F

 AILS TO

S

HOW THAT

I

T

I

S

E

NTITLED TO THE

E

XTRAORDINARY

R

EMEDY OF A

W

RIT OF

I

NJUNCTION

. ....................................... 17  A. There Are No Critical or Exigent Circumstances. ................................ 18 B. Agudath Israel Is Unlikely to Succeed on the Merits Because It Cannot Establish an “Indisputably Clear” Free Exercise Clause  Violation. ................................................................................................. 19 1. Executive Order 202.68 Is Neutral. ............................................ 20 2. Executive Order 202.68 Is Generally Applicable. ...................... 30 C. The Executive Order Has a Rational Basis. .......................................... 37 D. The Balance of Equities and the Public Interest Do Not Weigh in Favor of Injunctive Relief. ...................................................................... 37 II. C

ERTIORARI

B

EFORE

J

UDGMENT

I

S

N

OT

W

 ARRANTED

. ....................................... 39 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 41