Copyright © 2020 Caroline Mala Corbin.
 According to Johns Hopkins’s Covid-19 Dashboard, the number of people testing positive has increased exponentially: By March 1, 2020, 30 people had tested positive; by April 1, the number increased to approximately 214,205; by May 1 it was 1.1 million; by June 1, 1.8 million; by July 1, 2.7 million; and by August 1, 4.6 million. Covid-19 Dashboard, Johns Hopkins Univ., Coronavirus Res. Ctr., https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map [https://perma.cc/ASR4-G6D8] (last visited Aug. 21, 2020).
 At least 100,000 people had died by mid-May of 2020. David Welna, ‘We All Feel At Risk’: 100,000 People Dead from COVID-19 in the U.S., NPR (May 27, 2020, 5:50 PM), https://www.npr.org/2020/05/27/860508864/we-all-feel-at-risk-100-000-people-dead-from-covid-19-in-the-u-s [https://perma.cc/G44F-24QE]. By mid-August, the death rate in the U.S. had increased to over 170,000. Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count, N.Y. Times, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html [https://perma.cc/3VR8-Q8X9] (last visited Aug. 21, 2020).
 See Jiachuan Wu, Savannah Smith, Mansee Khurana, Corky Siemaszko & Brianna DeJesus-Banos, Stay-At-Home Orders Across the Country: What Each State is Doing – Or Not Doing – Amid Widespread Coronavirus Lockdowns, NBC News (Apr. 29, 2020), https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/here-are-stay-home-orders-across-country-n1168736 [https://perma.cc/NX52-W32W]. Some states started earlier, and some extended beyond April. See id.
 Tony Romm, Americans Have Filed More Than 40 Million Jobless Claims in Past 10 Weeks, as Another 2.1 Million Filed for Benefits Last Week, Wash. Post (May 28, 2020, 9:00 AM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/28/unemployment-claims-coronavirus [https://perma.cc/BK55-9FEX].
 Map: Coronavirus and School Closures, Educ. Wk. (May 15, 2020), https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-coronavirus-and-school-closures.html [https://perma.cc/6A7W-K46W].
 As the Eastern District of Virginia noted in Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam, Virginia’s regulation banned crowds of ten or more at schools, churches, and indoor spots including,
all dining and congregation areas in restaurants, dining establishments, food courts, breweries, microbreweries, distilleries, wineries, tasting rooms, and farmers markets . . . “all public access to recreational and entertainment businesses” including “[t]heaters, performing arts centers, concert venues, museums, and other indoor entertainment centers; [f]itness centers, gymnasiums, recreation centers, indoor sports facilities, and indoor exercise facilities; [b]eauty salons, barbershops, spas, massage parlors, tanning salons, tattoo shops . . . ; [r]acetracks and historic horse racing facilities; and [b]owling alleys, skating rinks, arcades, amusement parks, trampoline parks, fairs, arts and craft facilities, aquariums, zoos, escape rooms, indoor shooting ranges, public and private social clubs, and all other places of indoor public amusement.
Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam, No. 2:20cv204, 2020 WL 2110416, at *2 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2020).
 See, e.g., Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, No. 3:20-cv-278-DJH, 2020 WL 1909616, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 18, 2020) (banning “[a]ll mass gatherings,” defined as “any event or convening that brings together groups of individuals” including “community, civic, public, leisure, faith-based, or sporting events; parades; concerts; festivals; conventions; fundraisers; and similar activities”).
 Rachel Treisman, West: Coronavirus-Related Restrictions by State, NPR (July 2, 2020, 4:01 PM), https://www.npr.org/2020/05/01/847416108/west-coronavirus-related-restrictions-by-state [https://perma.cc/SMA2-C3SZ].
 As of July 13, dine-in restaurants, bars, wineries, movie theatres, family entertainment centers, and museums are shut down statewide. Hard-hit counties must also close their indoor gyms, personal care services, shopping malls, “[o]ffices for non-critical infrastructure sectors,” and places of worship. County Data Monitoring, CA.Gov, https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap-counties [https://perma.cc/PDJ2-D77L] (last visited Aug. 21, 2020).
 See Wu et al., supra note 3.
 Dillon C. Adams & Benjamin J. Cowling, Just Stop the Superspreading, N.Y. Times (June 2, 2020), https://nyti.ms/2MnY6be [https://perma.cc/JSD2-QM9A]; Christie Aschwanden, How ‘Superspreading’ Events Drive Most COVID-19 Spread, Sci. Am. (June 23, 2020), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-superspreading-events-drive-most-covid-19-spread1 [https://perma.cc/E2SL-CSAZ] (noting research suggests 10–20 percent of infected people at super-spreader events are responsible for 80 percent of transmissions).
 See infra notes 125–128 and accompanying text (describing church outbreaks).
 See infra notes 126–128 and accompanying text (describing CDC study of outbreaks traced to religious services); see also Ariana Eunjung Cha, ‘Superspreading’ Events, Triggered by People Who May Not Even Know They Are Infected, Propel Coronavirus Pandemic, Wash. Post (July 18, 2020, 1:58 PM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/07/18/coronavirus-superspreading-events-drive-pandemic [https://perma.cc/6L7X-QHCZ] (reporting how one super-spreader event infected 144 people at the event and another 43 people across sixteen different counties who were not present).
 See, e.g., S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1613 (2020) (denying request for injunctive relief); Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409, 416 (6th Cir. 2020) (granting request for injunctive relief pending appeal); Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, No. 20-1811, 2020 WL 2517093, at *1 (7th Cir. May 16, 2020) (denying request for injunctive relief pending appeal).
 S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (2020).
 Id. at 1613 (“The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice K[agan] and by her referred to the Court is denied.”). The Executive Order still banned mass gatherings but made a limited exception for houses of worship, who were allowed to fill their buildings to 25 percent capacity with a maximum of 100 attendees. Id. (Roberts, C.J., concurring). The Court similarly denied an injunction against Nevada’s restrictions in July 2020. Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, No. 19A1070, 2020 WL 4251360 (U.S. July 24, 2020) (mem.). The Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak signed an order which allowed certain facilities—including casinos—to operate at 50 percent of their fire-code capacity, while religious facilities (like other permitted public gatherings) were required to cap their attendance at 50 persons. Id. at *3 (Alito, J., dissenting). Without an opinion from any Justice in the majority, it is difficult to parse their reasoning in this much more difficult case.
 Cf. Espinoza v. Mont. Dep’t of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2260 (2020) (“To satisfy [strict scrutiny], government action must advance interests of the highest order and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests.” (internal citations and quotations omitted)).
 The First Amendment contains two religion clauses: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause prevents the government from favoring religion or favoring one religion over others. McCreary Cty. v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968). It would, for example, bar the government from declaring Christianity the official state religion or directly funding churches. The Free Exercise Clause, on the other hand, protects the right of individuals to practice their faith. Emp. Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990). It would, for example, ban the government from outlawing Christianity, or banning churches.
 Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).
 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 220 (1972) (“A regulation neutral on its face may, in its application, nonetheless offend the constitutional requirement for governmental neutrality if it unduly burdens the free exercise of religion.” (citing Sherbert, 374 U.S. 398). Not all burdens on religion result in a free exercise exemption under the Sherbert v. Verner test. The burden may not be deemed substantial. Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693, 700 (1986) (“The Federal Government’s use of a Social Security number for Little Bird of the Snow does not itself in any degree impair Roy’s ‘freedom to believe, express, and exercise’ his religion.”). Or even if substantial, the law that imposed it may nonetheless pass strict scrutiny. See, e.g., United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 257 (1982) (“The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest.”).
 Emp. Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
 Id. at 879 (“[T]he right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability . . . .’” (quoting Lee, 455 U.S. at 263 n.3 (Stevens, J., concurring)).
 Id. at 874.
 Id. at 882.
 See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531–32 (1993) (“A law failing to satisfy these [neutral and generally applicable] requirements must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest.”).
 See, e.g., Antietam Battlefield KOA v. Hogan, No. CCB-20-1130, 2020 WL 2556496, at *5 (D. Md. May 20, 2020); Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, No. 20 C 2782, 2020 WL 2468194, at *2–3 (N.D. Ill. May 13, 2020), aff’d, 962 F.3d 341 (7th Cir. 2020); Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, No. 1:20-cv-00156-NT, 2020 WL 2310913, at *7 (D. Me. May 9, 2020); Cross Culture Christian Ctr. v. Newsom, No. 2:20-cv-00832-JAM-CKD, 2020 WL 2121111, at *3–4 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2020); Cassell v. Snyders, No. 20 C 50153, 2020 WL 2112374, at *6–7 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2020).
 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
 Id. at 38–39.
 Id. at 27.
 Id. at 26 (“But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.”).
 Id. at 26 (“Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own . . . regardless of the injury that may be done to others”); see also id. at 26–27 (“Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one’s own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others.”).
 Cassell v. Snyders, No. 20 C 50153, 2020 WL 2112374, at *6 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2020).
 See, e.g., Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, No. 20 C 2782, 2020 WL 2468194, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 13, 2020) (“[Plaintiffs] have failed to demonstrate either.”), aff’d, 962 F.3d 341 (7th Cir. 2020); Cross Culture Christian Ctr. v. Newsom, No. 2:20-cv-00832-JAM-CKD, 2020 WL 2121111, at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2020).
 Cf. Legacy Church, Inc. v. Kunkel, No. CIV 20-0327 JB\SCY, 2020 WL 1905586, at *30 (D.N.M. Apr. 17, 2020) (“Nonetheless, no matter how grave the emergency, individual constitutional freedoms—such as the free exercise of religion, one of the United States’ most treasured and closely guarded liberties—constrain state action.”).
 See, e.g., Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 219 (1944) (upholding forced internment of Japanese-American men, women, and children on national security grounds).
 See, e.g., In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 772, 784–85 (5th Cir. 2020) (upholding ban on non-emergency abortions under Jacobson standard); In re Rutledge, 956 F.3d 1018, 1027–28 (8th Cir. 2020) (same); Robinson v. Att’y Gen., 957 F.3d 1171, 1179–80 (11th Cir. 2020) (applying Jacobson). That these bans were a pretext to eliminate abortion rather than preserve medical resources or prevent the spread of coronavirus became evident by the bans’ inclusion of medical abortion, which can be provided remotely.
 Berean Baptist Church v. Cooper, No. 4:20-CV-81-D, 2020 WL 2514313, at *1 (E.D.N.C. May 16, 2020).
 Cf. Cassell v. Snyders, No. 20 C 50153, 2020 WL 2112374, at *6 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2020) (“The Constitution does not compel courts to turn a blind eye to the realities of the COVID-19 crisis.”).
 Amy Howe, Justices to Take Up Case Involving Faith-Based Adoption Agencies and Same-Sex Couples, SCOTUSBlog (Feb. 24, 2020, 3:33 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/02/justices-to-take-up-case-involving-faith-based-adoption-agencies-and-same-sex-couples [https://perma.cc/9ZNU-E9L9] (noting that the Supreme Court may reconsider its neutral and generally applicable test in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia).
 Chief Justice Roberts wrote only for himself, while Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent. S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1613–14 (2020); id. at 1614 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).
 Although the Chief Justice suggested that the executive order was neutral and generally applicable without ever using that particular language, see id. at 1613, he also cited Jacobson and emphasized that the politically accountable branches ought to have “especially broad” latitude during a pandemic rife with “medical and scientific uncertainties.” Id.
 See id. at 1614–15 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).
 It is also worth noting that eliminating Smith for Free Exercise Clause claims would not eliminate strict scrutiny, as it is part of the Sherbert v. Verner test as well. In addition to constitutional claims, some religious objectors have also brought claims under their state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). See, e.g., Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam, No. 2:20cv204, 2020 WL 2110416, at *14–16 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2020) (rejecting Virginia Act for Religious Freedom claim); Cassell, 2020 WL 2112374, at *12–13 (rejecting Plaintiff’s Illinois RFRA claim). These state laws are based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which only applies to federal laws. See Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (1993) (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq.); see generally City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (holding that the federal RFRA when applied to state laws was beyond Congress’s enforcement power under the 14th amendment). RFRAs provide more protection than the U.S. Constitution because any substantial burden on religious practice will trigger strict scrutiny, not only those regulations that do not qualify as “neutral and generally applicable.” Id. at 532. In other words, it imports the old Sherbert v. Verner test into the statute. Id. at 515. However, as with a constitutional challenge, if a law passes strict scrutiny in a state RFRA challenge, then the state’s law must be followed.
 A law is not neutral if “the object of [the] law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533 (1993).
 A law is not generally applicable if it “in a selective manner impose[s] burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief.” Id. at 543.
 S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 959 F.3d 938, 939 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 533, 543).
 Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 531 (“Neutrality and general applicability are interrelated, and, as becomes apparent in this case, failure to satisfy one requirement is a likely indication that the other has not been satisfied.”).
 See supra notes 3–7 and accompanying text.
 Spell v. Edwards, No. 20-00282-BAJ-EWD, 2020 WL 2509078, at *1 (M.D. La. May 15, 2020) (quoting La. Exec. Dep’t, Proclamation No. 52 JBE 2020, § 2(A) (Apr. 30, 2020), http://lpdb.la.gov/Proclamations/52-JBE-2020-State-of-Emergency-COVID-19-Extension-to-May-15.pdf [https://perma.cc/6996-6SYX]), vacated as moot, 962 F.3d 175 (5th Cir. 2020); see, e.g., Roberts v. Neace, No. 2:20cv054 (WOB-CJS), 2020 WL 2115358, at *1 (E.D. Ky. May 4, 2020) (“The Order [issued by the governor of Kentucky] states: ‘Mass gatherings include any event or convening that brings together groups of individuals, including, but not limited to, community, civic, public, leisure, faith-based, or sporting events; parades; concerts; festivals; conventions; fundraisers; and similar activities.’” (quoting Ky. Exec. Order No. 2020-319, § 2 (Mar. 19, 2020), https://governor.ky.gov/attachments/20200319_Order_Mass-Gatherings.pdf [https://perma.cc/WYC2-5QF3])).
 The Virginia Executive Order defined essential businesses as:
[g]rocery stores, pharmacies, and other retailers that sell food and beverage products or pharmacy products, including dollar stores and department stores with grocery or pharmacy options; [m]edical, laboratory, and vision supply retailers; [e]lectronic retailers that sell or service cell phones, computers, tablets, and other communication technology; [a]utomotive parts, accessories, and tire retailers as well as automotive repair facilities; [h]ome improvement, hardware, building material, and building supply retailers; [l]awn and garden equipment retailers; [b]eer, wine, and liquor stores; [r]etail functions of gas and convenience stores; [r]etail located within healthcare facilities; [b]anks and other financial institutions with retail functions; [p]et and feed stores; [p]rinting and office supply stores; and [l]aundromats and dry cleaners.
Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam, No. 2:20cv204, 2020 WL 2110416, at *6 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2020).
 For example, Maine’s list of exempted businesses included “grocery stores, household goods stores, gas stations, hardware stores, home repair stores, garden centers and stores, child care services, and medical marijuana dispensaries.” Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, No. 1:20-cv-00156-NT, 2020 WL 2310913, at *3 (D. Me. May 9, 2020).
 Meanwhile, these “higher risk” activities were to re-open before the “highest risk” activities such as concerts, convention centers, and live audience sports. Cal. Dep’t of Pub. Health, Update on California’s Pandemic Roadmap (2020), https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Update-on-California-Pandemic-Roadmap.pdf [https://perma.cc/YCX5-3GCL].
 See supra note 44.
 Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 540 (1993) (“In determining if the object of a law is a neutral one under the Free Exercise Clause, we can also find guidance in our equal protection cases.”).
 Id. (quoting Pers. Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979)).
 Id. at 533 (emphasis added).
 See, e.g., Cassell v. Snyders, No. 20 C 50153, 2020 WL 2112374, at *8 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2020) (“[T]he Order proscribes secular and religious conduct alike. . . . Indeed, its limitations extend to most places where people gather, from museums to theaters to bowling alleys.” (citing Ill. Exec. Order No. 2020-32, § 2, ¶ 3 (Apr. 30, 2020), https://www2.illinois.gov/Pages/Executive-Orders/ExecutiveOrder2020-32.aspx [https://perma.cc/JY9D-SYFG], which forbids “any gathering of more than ten people”)).
 See, e.g., First Baptist Church v. Kelly, No. 20-1102-JWB, 2020 WL 1910021, at *7 (D. Kan. Apr. 18, 2020) (“EO 20-18 and EO 20-25 both state that their prohibitions against mass gatherings apply to ‘churches or other religious facilities.’ . . . These provisions show that these executive orders expressly target religious gatherings on a broad scale and are, therefore, not facially neutral.”).
 Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam, No. 2:20cv204, 2020 WL 2110416, at *5 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2020) (“Executive Order 55 presents no neutrality problem; it merely uses religious gatherings as one of several examples of ‘all public and private in-person gatherings.’ The Orders are facially neutral.”).
 See supra notes 6–7 and accompanying text for examples of religious services being included in a ban, rather than targeted specifically by a ban.
 Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 534.
 S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1613, 1615 (2020).
 Cf. Spell v. Edwards, No. 20-00282-BAJ-EWD, 2020 WL 2509078, at *5 (M.D. La. May 15, 2020) (“[T]he Governor’s order restricts religious and non-religious gatherings to the exact same extent and degree.”), vacated as moot, 962 F.3d 175 (5th Cir. 2020); Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, No. 3:20-cv-278-DJH, 2020 WL 1909616, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 18, 2020) (“[T]he order temporarily prohibits ‘[a]ll mass gatherings,’ not merely religious gatherings. Religious expression is not singled out.”).
 S. Bay, 140 S. Ct. at 1613 (Roberts, C.J., concurring).
 Legacy Church, Inc. v. Kunkel, No. CIV 20-0327 JB\SCY 2020 WL 1905586, at *41 (D.N.M. Apr. 17, 2020).
 Id. (“Moreover, religious organizations have received preferential treatment relative to their closest comparators . . . .”).
 Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam, No. 2:20cv204, 2020 WL 2110416, at *5 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2020) (“Executive Order 55 . . . singles out religion for favorable treatment by recognizing the importance of traveling to and from places of worship.”).
 Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 543 (1993).
 Id. (“They fail to prohibit nonreligious conduct that endangers these interests in a similar or greater degree than Santeria sacrifice does.”); see, e.g., Legacy Church, 2020 WL 3963764, at *81 (“Although all laws ‘are selective to some extent,’ a regulation is not generally applicable when the government affords favorable treatment to secular conduct ‘that endangers the [government]’s interests in a similar or greater degree’ as does restricted religious activity.”).
 And when this happens, it also may raise the question about whether the government’s stated goal is its true goal or merely a pretext for discrimination, casting into doubt its neutrality.
 Cf. Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 543 (“In this case we need not define with precision the standard used to evaluate whether a prohibition is of general application, for these ordinances fall well below the minimum standard necessary to protect First Amendment rights.”); Legacy Church, 2020 WL 3963764, at *89 (“That the Supreme Court’s Justices and the lower courts cannot agree what states may do to guard against a once-in-a-generation public health threat demonstrates the confusion of the Supreme Court’s Free Exercise doctrine.”).
 Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 2020) (“[A] law might appear to be generally applicable on the surface but not be so in practice due to exceptions for comparable secular activities.”).
 Cf. Legacy Church, 2020 WL 3963764, at *89 (“The Sixth Circuit asserted, as a ‘rule of thumb,’ that ‘the more exceptions to a prohibition, the less likely it will count as a generally applicable, non-discriminatory law.’”).
 Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 535 (“The design of these laws accomplishes instead a ‘religious gerrymander,’ an impermissible attempt to target petitioners and their religious practices.”).
 Id. at 540–42 (cataloguing comments hostile to Santeria made by city council and residents).
 See Fraternal Ord. of Police v. City of Newark, 170 F.3d 359, 366 (3d Cir. 1999); Mitchell Cty. v. Zimmerman, 810 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 2012) (holding that a ban on vehicles with steel wheels was not neutral and generally applicable because school buses and fire trucks were exempted).
 Fraternal Ord. of Police, 170 F.3d at 366.
 Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 542.
 Emp. Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 874 (1990) (“Oregon law prohibits the knowing or intentional possession of a ‘controlled substance’ unless the substance has been prescribed by a medical practitioner.”).
 Cf. Cassell v. Snyders, No. 20 C 50153, 2020 WL 2112374, at *9 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2020) (“If Walmart and Menards are allowed to host more than ten visitors, Plaintiffs’ theory goes, then so should the Beloved Church.”).
 See, e.g., Legacy Church, Inc. v. Kunkel, No. CIV 20-0327 JB\SCY, 2020 WL 1905586, at *34 (D.N.M. Apr. 17, 2020) (“Legacy Church contends that the April 11 Order is not generally applicable, because it allows ‘big box retailers to continue to welcome patrons’ while prohibiting church services.”).
 S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1614–15 (2020) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).
 Legacy Church, 2020 WL 1905586, at *33 (“Lukumi and Smith require the Court, however, to compare analogous exemptions.”).
 Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409, 412–13 (6th Cir. 2020) (“Among the many exempt entities are laundromats, accounting services, law firms, hardware stores, airlines, mining operations, funeral homes, landscaping businesses, and grocery stores.”).
 Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam, No. 2:20cv204, 2020 WL 2110416, at *3 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2020) (“The Order permits ‘business operations offering professional rather than retail services to remain open,’ but directs that ‘they should utilize teleworking as much as possible.’”).
 See, e.g., Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, No. 1:20-cv-00156-NT, 2020 WL 2310913, at *8 (D. Me. May 9, 2020) (“In particular, the Plaintiff notes that there is an exemption from the ten-person limit for ‘liquor stores, warehouse clubs, supercenter stores, [and] marijuana dispensaries.’”).
 Legacy Church, 2020 WL 1905586, at *40 (“Each and every business mentioned by Legacy Church either sells items necessary for everyday life or to facilitate the mitigation of COVID-19.”).
 Id. (“All these stores facilitate the purchase of necessary items that help treat ill individuals who are staying at home, or that make a house habitable, or that feed people so they can stay alive.”).
 Lighthouse Fellowship Church, 2020 WL 2110416, at *7.
 Id. at *6; see also Roberts v. Neace, No. 2:20cv054 (WOB-CJS), 2020 WL 2115358, at *3 (E.D. Ky. May 4, 2020) (“[T]here is an undeniable difference between certain activities that are, literally, life sustaining and other that are not.”).
 Lighthouse Fellowship Church, 2020 WL 2110416, at *7 (“Although these [professional] businesses may not be essential, the exception crafted on their behalf is essential to prevent joblessness at a time when people desperately need to retain their income and healthcare . . . .”).
 See supra notes 6–7 and accompanying text.
 Cf. Roberts, 2020 WL 2115358, at *3 (“And while plaintiffs argue that faith-based gatherings are as important as physical sustenance, as a literal matter, they are not life-sustaining in the physical sense.”).
 On Fire Christian Ctr., Inc. v. Fischer, No. 3:20-CV-264-JRW, 2020 WL 1820249, at *7 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 11, 2020).
 Keith Dunlap, Why Are Liquor Stores Considered ‘Essential’ During Covid-19 Pandemic? Here Are Five Reasons, Click Orlando (Mar. 31, 2020, 10:56 AM), https://www.clickorlando.com/features/2020/03/31/why-are-liquor-stores-considered-essential-during-covid-19-pandemic-here-are-5-reasons [https://perma.cc/TPE8-MUJ9] (noting that many liquor stores sell food).
 Lighthouse Fellowship Church, 2020 WL 2110416, at *7 (“The danger posed by sudden alcohol withdrawal to those suffering from alcohol dependence, and the added burden upon health facilities that this might trigger, are significant factors that must be considered.”).
 Max Jordan Nguemeni Tiako & Kelsey C. Priest, Yes, Liquor Stores Are Essential Businesses, Sci. Am. (Apr. 7, 2020), https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/yes-liquor-stores-are-essential-businesses [https://perma.cc/ZQH4-7RZV].
 Legacy Church, Inc. v. Kunkel, No. CIV 20-0327 JB\SCY, 2020 WL 1905586, at *40 (D.N.M. Apr. 17, 2020) (“The Court recognizes that, to many individuals, religious worship is equally essential and important to life.”).
 Antietam Battlefield KOA v. Hogan, No. CCB-20-1130, 2020 WL 2556496, at *8 (D. Md. May 20, 2020) (“[U]nlike religious services, [these essential services] cannot operate remotely.”).
 Lighthouse Fellowship Church, 2020 WL 2110416, at *8 (“Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that it is incapable of practicing its religion or providing spiritual guidance to its members in groups of ten or fewer.”).
 Cf. Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, No. 3:20-cv-278-DJH, 2020 WL 1909616, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 18, 2020) (“None of the challenged orders limits other avenues of group worship, such as drive-in, online, video or telephone conferencing, Facebook, or broadcast radio or television.”); Cassell v. Snyders, No. 20 C 50153, 2020 WL 2112374, at *13 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2020) (“In addition to drive-in services and smaller worship services, the Order permits Cassell and other staff members to visit and minister to parishioners in their homes. It allows small group meetings, bible study meetings, and prayer gatherings at the church or in private homes, subject to the ten-person limit.”).
 See, e.g., Emily McFarlan Miller, Churches Go Back to the Future with Drive-In Services in the Time of the Coronavirus, Religion News Serv. (Mar. 23, 2020), https://religionnews.com/2020/03/23/churches-go-back-to-the-future-with-drive-in-services-in-the-time-of-the-coronavirus [https://perma.cc/MN3E-JS37]; Sarah Pulliam Bailey & Ruth Eglash, With Passover, Easter and Ramadan Looming, Clergy Scramble to Create Holidays at a Distance, Wash. Post (Apr. 3, 2020, 11:53 AM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/04/03/easter-passover-ramadan-religious-coronavirus-closures [https://perma.cc/382P-ASR2].
 Cf. Tabernacle Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, No. 3:20-cv-00033-GFVT, 2020 WL 2305307, at *2 (E.D. Ky. May 8, 2020) (“For Plaintiff, these substitutes offer cold comfort.”).
 Cassell, 2020 WL 2112374, at *2 (“The virus has killed hundreds of thousands, infected millions, and disrupted the lives of nearly everyone on the planet.”); Roberts v. Neace, No. 2:20cv054 (WOB-CJS), 2020 WL 2115358, at *4 (E.D. Ky. May 4, 2020) (“Indeed, it is hard to imagine that there is any American that has not been impacted [by the pandemic].”).
 Moreover, some items cannot be delivered, like gas.
 On Fire Christian Ctr., Inc. v. Fischer, No. 3:20-CV-264-JRW, 2020 WL 1820249, at *9 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 11, 2020) (“On Fire ‘and its members have a sincerely held religious belief that physical corporate gathering of believers each Sunday . . . is a central element of religious worship commanded by the Lord.’”).
 Large family reunions, for example, cannot take place.
 Cassell, 2020 WL 2112374, at *9 (“But the question is not whether any secular organization faces fewer restrictions than any religious organization. Rather, the question is whether secular conduct ‘that endangers the [government]’s interests in a similar or greater degree’ receives favorable treatment.”); Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, No. 1:20-cv-00156-NT, 2020 WL 2310913, at *8 (D. Me. May 9, 2020) (same).
 Compare Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409, 414 (6th Cir. 2020) (“[M]any of the serial exemptions for secular activities pose comparable public health risks to worship services.”), with Calvary Chapel, 2020 WL 2310913, at *8 (“Gatherings in houses of worship present a greater risk to the public health than shopping at a grocery store or other retail outlet.”).
 Tabernacle Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, No. 3:20-cv-00033-GFVT, 2020 WL 2305307, at *5 (E.D. Ky. May 8, 2020).
 S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1613 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring).
 In fact, infectiousness may peak right at the beginning. At least one study “observed the highest viral load in throat swabs at the time of symptom onset, and inferred that infectiousness peaked on or before symptom onset.” Xi He et al., Temporal Dynamics in Viral Shedding and Transmissibility of COVID-19, 26 Nature Med. 672, 672 (2020); see also Tina Hesman Saey, Covid-19 May Be Most Contagious One or Two Days Before Symptoms Appear, Sci. News (Apr. 15, 2020, 5:39 PM), https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-infection-contagious-days-before-symptoms-appear [https://perma.cc/942X-22VT] (noting that individuals are most likely to spread Covid-19 before they feel ill). Roughly 40 percent of transmission occurs before the person shows symptoms according to CDC estimates. Aschwanden, supra note 11.
 How Covid-19 Spreads, CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html [https://perma.cc/JLV8-94Q4] (last updated June 16, 2020); Tanya Lewis, How Coronavirus Spreads Through the Air: What We Know So Far, Sci. Am. (May 12, 2020), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-coronavirus-spreads-through-the-air-what-we-know-so-far1 [https://perma.cc/LG89-82B6]; Lidia Morawska & Donald K. Milton, It Is Time To Address Airborne Transmission of COVID-19, Clinical Infectious Diseases (July 6, 2020) https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa939/5867798 [https://perma.cc/9J3T-GLYW]; Apoorva Mandavilli, The Coronavirus Can Be Airborne Indoors, W.H.O. Says, N.Y. Times (July 9, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/health/virus-aerosols-who.html [https://perma.cc/HK2F-UE98]; Phoebe Southworth, Coronavirus Could Travel Five Meters Through Air, Study Finds, Telegraph (Aug. 15, 2020, 5:00 PM), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/15/coronavirus-could-travel-five-metres-air-study-finds [https://perma.cc/8QKT-5LB7].
 Kai Kupferschmidt, Why Do Some COVID-19 Patients Infect Many Others, Whereas Most Don’t Spread the Virus at All?, Science (May 19, 2020, 5:25 PM), https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all [https://perma.cc/372D-PGUS] (“Researchers in China studying the spread of the coronavirus outside Hubei province—ground zero for the pandemic—identified 318 clusters of three or more cases between 4 January and 11 February, only one of which originated outdoors.”); see also id. (describing another study that concluded that the risk of infection inside was 19 times higher than outside).
 Aschwanden, supra note 11 (describing the catalyst for super-spreader events as “large indoor crowd sizes, close contact between people, and confined spaces with poor ventilation”).
 See id. (“Time matters too. The longer a group stays in contact, the greater the likelihood that the virus will spread among them.”).
 WHO (@WHO), Twitter (July 16, 2020, 11:36 PM), https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1283787493096202240?s=20 [https://perma.cc/5QCD-PGCH]; Epidemiologists in Japan have long warned against the three Cs: closed spaces, crowded places, and close-contact settings where people are talking face-to-face. Office for Novel Coronavirus Disease Control, Gov’t of Japan, Avoid the ‘Three Cs’! (2020) https://corona.go.jp/prevention/pdf/en.cluster2.pdf [https://perma.cc/62WS-VVCN].
 Kupferschmidt, supra note 117 (“[O]ne thing links numerous clusters: They happened in places where people shout or sing.”); Lewis, supra note 116 (“Some evidence suggests that talking could be a significant mode of viral transmission.”). For this reason, Germany has banned singing in churches. Kate Connolly, Germany to Set Out Rules for Religious Services Including Singing Ban, Guardian (Apr. 29, 2020, 12:09 PM), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/germany-to-set-out-rules-for-religious-services-including-singing-ban [https://perma.cc/Q3LB-35MZ].
 Richard Read, A Choir Decided to Go Ahead with Rehearsal. Now Dozens Have Covid-19 and Two Are Dead, L.A. Times (Mar. 29, 2020, 7:34 PM), https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-29/coronavirus-choir-outbreak [https://perma.cc/39Y5-4U55].
 Lea Hamner et al., High SARS-CoV-2 Attack Rate Following Exposure at a Choir Practice — Skagit County, Washington, March 2020, 69 Morbidity & Mortality Wkly. Rep. 606, 607 (2020), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6919e6-H.pdf [https://perma.cc/LPK9-2F3U].
 Kevin Kavanaugh, Churches Could be the Deadliest Places in the Covid-19 Pandemic, Infection Control Today (Apr. 3, 2020), https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/covid-19/churches-could-be-deadliest-places-covid-19-pandemic [https://perma.cc/JM5B-URWD].
 See, e.g., Kyle Pfannenstiel, Officials Say Religious Revival Linked to 5 Hospitalizations, 35 COVID-19 Cases, Idaho Falls Post Reg. (June 9, 2020), https://www.postregister.com/coronavirus/officials-say-religious-revival-linked-to-5-hospitalizations-35-covid-19-cases/article_7a403f8e-ee4d-553a-92e8-0897c6419492.html [https://perma.cc/5NN2-SQPP]; Alex Wigglesworth, More COVID-19 Cases Linked to California Church Services, L.A. Times (May 24, 2020, 12:02 PM), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-24/more-coronavirus-cases-linked-to-california-church-services [https://perma.cc/KK4E-27P7]; Jeremy Redmon, Georgia Struggles Over Whether to Restrict Congregations Amid Pandemic, Atl. J-Const. (Mar. 27, 2020), https://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-news/the-struggle-over-whether-restrict-congregations-amid-pandemic/xjDx2urFFZqS7qsIR6Ma5H [https://perma.cc/AD4Q-BRK6]; see also Cassell v. Snyders, No. 20 C 50153, 2020 WL 2112374, at *9 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2020) (listing multiple “examples where religious services have accelerated the pathogen’s spread.”).
 Allison James et al., High COVID-19 Attack Rate Among Attendees at Events at a Church –Arkansas, March 2020, 69 Morbidity & Mortality Wkly. Rep. 632, 634 tbl. 1 (2020), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6920e2-H.pdf [https://perma.cc/2K4Q-V2VS].
 Wyatt Massey, Church of God Denomination Facing Significant COVID-19 Outbreak; Leaders Won’t Say How Many Infected, Chattanooga Times Free Press (July 7, 2020), https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2020/jul/07/church-god-denomination-outbreak/527007/#/questions/2602258 [https://perma.cc/SD4B-TD6H]; Celina Tebor, Oregon’s Biggest Coronavirus Outbreak Yet is Linked to Union County Church, State Officials Confirm, Oregonian (last updated June 17, 2020), https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/06/coronavirus-outbreak-linked-to-eastern-oregon-church-surpasses-200-cases.html [https://perma.cc/56NP-MJKQ].
 Kate Conger, Jack Healy & Lucy Tompkins, Churches Were Eager to Reopen. Now They Are Confronting Coronavirus Cases, N.Y. Times (July 10, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/coronavirus-churches-outbreaks.html [https://perma.cc/8528-9Y8J] (describing multiple outbreaks); Lateshia Beachum, Two Churches Reclose After Faith Leaders and Congregants Get Coronavirus, Wash. Post (May 10, 2020, 4:33 PM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/05/19/two-churches-reclose-after-faith-leaders-congregants-get-coronavirus [https://perma.cc/TP79-QJMU].
 See, e.g., Carol Kuruvilla, Texas Pastor Apologizes After Allowing Hugging at Church After Dozens Contract COVID-19, Huffington Post (last updated July 8, 2020), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/calvary-chapel-san-antonio-covid-19_n_5f036d95c5b6acab285432ac [https://perma.cc/8MTP-HKH8]; Bethany Clough, ‘I Want to Go to Church;’ Fresno Church Defies Health Orders with Singing and a Crowd, Fresno Bee (May 31, 2020, 12:54 PM), https://www.fresnobee.com/news/coronavirus/article243135876.html [https://perma.cc/UF73-JBS6]; Daniel Burke, A Louisiana Pastor Defies A State Order and Holds a Church Service with Hundreds of People, CNN (Mar. 18, 2020, 8:28 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/18/us/louisiana-pastor-coronavirus/index.html [https://perma.cc/9E5J-VPRN].
 Conger, Healy & Tompkins, supra note 129 (describing multiple outbreaks).
 Cassell v. Snyders, No. 20 C 50153, 2020 WL 2112374, at *9 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2020) (“There are many examples where religious services have accelerated the pathogen’s spread . . . In comparison, Plaintiffs have failed to identify a grocery store or liquor store that has acted as a vector for the virus.”). The calculus may differ for those working unprotected all day long at these locations.
 While not exactly analogous, a study of an outbreak at a South Korean call center highlights the different risks of transitory interactions compared to extended contact. Roughly half the employees on one floor, most sitting on the same side of the floor, became infected. Yet, according to the Korean CDC, “[d]espite considerable interaction between workers on different floors of building X in the elevators and lobby, spread of COVID-19 was limited almost exclusively to the 11th floor, which indicates that the duration of interaction (or contact) was likely the main facilitator for further spreading.” Aylin Woodward, You’re Most Likely To Catch the Coronavirus in a Poorly Ventilated Space. That Makes Offices Very Risky., Bus. Insider (May 6, 2020, 12:46 PM), https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-risk-higher-tight-indoor-spaces-with-little-air-flow-2020-5 [https://perma.cc/6KPW-HE9E].
 S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1613 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring).
 Cassell, 2020 WL 2112374, at *9 (“The purpose of shopping is . . . to purchase necessary items and then leave as soon as possible.”).
 Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, No. 1:20-cv-00156-NT, 2020 WL 2310913, at *8 (D. Me. May 9, 2020).
 Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, No. 20 C 2782, 2020 WL 2468194, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 13, 2020) (“[L]ast Sunday’s service . . . was one hour, forty-seven minutes long, with virtually no one in the congregation or clergy wearing a face covering.”), aff’d, 962 F.3d 341 (7th Cir. 2020); see also Calvary Chapel, 2020 WL 2310913, at *8 (“In contrast, the Plaintiff seeks to hold worship service for ‘no more than a few hours twice per week.’”).
 S. Bay, 140 S. Ct. at 1614 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (quoting Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409, 414 (6th Cir. 2020)).
 A similar rebuttal answers Justice Kavanaugh’s question, “[w]hy can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister?” Id. Customers interact briefly or not at all with people delivering goods to their home, which is not the case with worshippers and their clergy. Also, people at church interact with all the other congregants as well as the clergy.
 Cassell, 2020 WL 2112374, at *9 (“The purpose of shopping is not to gather with others or engage them in conversation and fellowship . . . .”).
 Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, No. 3:20-cv-00033-GFVT, 2020 WL 1909616, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 18, 2020) (noting that “the purpose of community-centered religious organizations” is “to congregate and converse”).
 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch. of Pub. Health, Public Health Principals for a Phased Re-Opening During Covid-19: Guidance for Governors 12, 16 (Apr. 17, 2020), https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/pubs_archive/pubs-pdfs/2020/200417-reopening-guidance-governors.pdf [https://perma.cc/VJ2A-WDNW]. The Guide also rated worship services as “high” in number of contacts, compared to “medium” for retail. Id.
 Cassell, 2020 WL 2112374, at *9 (“Given that religious gatherings seek to promote conversation and fellowship, they ‘endanger’ the government’s interest in fighting COVID-19 to a ‘greater degree’ than the secular businesses Plaintiffs identify.”).
 In a chart created by highly credentialed healthcare experts, attending church in person was listed as a “high risk” activity. Working in an office was “medium/high risk” while retail shopping was “low/medium risk.” What is low risk? Staying at home; running or biking; picking up take-out. COVID-19 Activity Risk Levels, Ezekiel J. Emanuel (June 30, 2020), http://www.ezekielemanuel.com/writing/all-articles/2020/06/30/covid-19-activity-risk-levels [https://perma.cc/H648-46B5].
 Antietam Battlefield KOA v. Hogan, No. CCB-20-1130, 2020 WL 2556496, at *8 (D. Md. May 20, 2020); see also Spell v. Edwards, No. CV 20-00282, 2020 WL 2509078, at *3 (M.D. La. May 15, 2020) (“[T]he transient, in-and-out nature of consumer interaction with businesses, like those identified by the Plaintiff, are markedly different from the extended, more densely packed environments of churches . . . .”), vacated as moot, 962 F.3d 175 (5th Cir. 2020).
 That was, after all, the configuration of the Korean call center. See supra note 133.
 Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409, 416 (6th Cir. 2020) (“It’s not as if law firm office meetings . . . always take less time than worship services.”); Woodward, supra note 133 (describing the risk of poorly ventilated offices).
 Roberts, 958 F.3d at 415.
 Filing a legal brief, for example, requires printing, photocopying, tabs, and special stationary. They also often include elaborate and detailed documentary submissions. And while some courts allow online submissions, not all do. The Courts of Appeals will accept online briefs initially, but hard copies in triplicate need to be submitted soon after. Or at the trial level, responding to document requests may require printing out thousands of pages.
 Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, No. 20 C 2782, 2020 WL 2468194, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 13, 2020), aff’d, 962 F.3d 341 (7th Cir. 2020).
 It does, however, make it easier to satisfy general applicability if there is no secular counterpart that is exempted. It may be for this reason that California’s most recent order puts worship services and offices that are not part of critical infrastructure in the same category. See supra note 9. According to California, critical infrastructure includes things like emergency services, healthcare, energy, water, dams, transportation, information technology, critical manufacturing, etc. Cal. Dep’t of Pub. Health, Essential Workforce (2020), https://covid19.ca.gov/img/EssentialCriticalInfrastructureWorkers.pdf [https://perma.cc/7QXZ-BYB6].
 See supra note 80 and accompanying text.
 Emp. Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990) (“To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”); Colin A. Devine, A Critique of the Secular Exceptions Approach to Religious Exemptions, 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1348, 1352 (2015) (“If religious exemptions must be granted from any law with secular exceptions, they will be granted from nearly every law.”).
 Aylin Woodward, Trump Declared Houses of Worship Essential. Mounting Evidence Shows They’re Super-Spreader Hotspots, Bus. Insider India (May 31, 2020, 11:20 PM), https://www.businessinsider.in/science/news/trump-just-declared-houses-of-worship-essential-mounting-evidence-shows-theyre-super-spreader-hotspots-/articleshow/75907337.cms [https://perma.cc/JR8E-2DV4] (“[Super-spreader] events have shared a few key characteristics: They’ve mostly been indoors and puts lots of people from different households in close, extended contact. That’s precisely the type of gathering that churches, mosques, and synagogues facilitate.”).
 Espinoza v. Mont. Dep’t of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2260 (2020) (“To satisfy [strict scrutiny], government action ‘must advance “interests of the highest order” and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests.’”).
 Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786, 847 (2011) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (defining a law passing strict scrutiny as “‘narrowly tailored’ to further a “compelling interest,” without there being a ‘less restrictive’ alternative that would be ‘at least as effective’”)).
 Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, No. 3:20-cv-278-DJH, 2020 WL 1909616, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 18, 2020) (“Plaintiffs do not contend that the Commonwealth lacks a compelling governmental interest in restricting mass gatherings to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”).
 Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409, 415 (6th Cir. 2020); see also S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1614 (2020) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (“California undoubtedly has a compelling interest in combating the spread of COVID-19 and protecting the health of its citizens.”).
 See, e.g., Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam, No. 2:20cv204, 2020 WL 2110416, at *16 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2020) (“The equities, in the context of a deadly pandemic, tip in Defendant’s favor.”).
 It is not so much that courts are applying Jacobson sub rosa, see supra Part I, but that courts may prove more deferential when evaluating what they perceive as an emergency situation.
 See, e.g., Maryville Baptist Church, 2020 WL 1909616, at *3 (“Given that COVID-19 is widely understood to be transmitted through person-to-person contact, including persons with and without symptoms of illness, Beshear will likely be able to demonstrate that restricting large in-person gatherings is the least restrictive means of accomplishing the Commonwealth’s objective.”); Roberts, 2020 WL 2115358, at *4 (“This Court agrees [that the church has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success]. The current public health crisis presents life-or-death dangers.”).
 S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 959 F.3d 938, 939 (9th Cir. 2020). The Ninth Circuit added, “In the words of Justice Robert Jackson, if a ‘[c]ourt does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.’” Id.
 First Baptist Church v. Kelly, No. 20-1102-JWB, 2020 WL 1910021, at *8 (D. Kan. Apr. 18, 2020) (“Plaintiffs can likely show that the broad prohibition against in-person religious services of more than ten congregants is not narrowly tailored to achieve the stated public health goals where the comparable secular gatherings are subjected to much less restrictive conditions.”).
 Roberts, 958 F.3d at 415. Of course, this argument turns on whether the activities are in fact comparable.
 Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam, No. 2:20cv204, 2020 WL 2110416, at *16 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2020).
 Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166–67 (1944).
 Lighthouse Fellowship Church, 2020 WL 2110416, at *17 (“[T]he libert[ies] secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly free from restraint.” (quoting Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 26 (1905))).
 Cassell v. Snyders, No. 20 C 50153, 2020 WL 2112374, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2020).