The court blocked the so-called collection restrictions in Santa Clara County, which critics say treat churches differently from secular businesses, in violation of the First Amendment.
The issue bitterly divided the court and the three liberal judges – Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor – noted their dissent in an order issued after hours on Friday.
The court acted despite the fact that restrictions are scheduled to be lifted next week.
The dispute was brought up by several churches in Santa Clara County that opposed the ban on all internal meetings, including political events, weddings, funerals, film screenings and religious services.
Although the Supreme Court earlier this month revoked state regulations that banned indoor worship services, the state allows counties to pass their own stricter rules.
In court documents, lawyers for Santa Clara County churches said the county “did just that.”
“The Santa Clara Public Health Director forced the faithful to leave the house in the heat and smoke of summer and in the cold and rain of autumn and winter,” argued Kevin T. Snider, a church attorney, in court documents.
“Article III courts have a duty to protect zealously and zealously the rights of people in the other two branches of government and states in times like these,” he said, calling the county “an island of tyranny.”
The county of Santa Clara allows houses of worship to meet with 20% of the capacity for any purpose, except worship services. Other businesses, including supermarkets and retail stores, as well as hairdressers and tattoo and body art salons, can operate at 20% capacity.
A first instance court upheld the restrictions, holding that they were neutral regulations that applied to everyone.
In court documents, county attorneys distinguished their dispute from the recent Supreme Court case, South Bay v. Gavin Newsom, which concerned state regulations. They said their restrictions are “fundamentally different” from others that judges have already considered, because they “do not impose special restrictions on religious institutions”.
“Instead,” James R. Williams, of the County Council office, argued “they prohibit all internal meetings of all kinds everywhere.” Williams stressed that the places of worship are not closed. They are open for individuals to pray, confess and seek spiritual guidance.
“Critically, retail stores and other secular establishments are subject to exactly the same rules,” he said, noting that customers can buy items indoors, but cannot attend an internal meeting, such as reading a book. .
In its brief decision on Friday, the Supreme Court disagreed, although it did not present its arguments. The court said the outcome of the case “is clearly dictated” by its decision in South Bay.