Massachusetts reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic by adopting severe restrictions on the First Amendment right of peaceable assembly. Governor Baker exempted political gatherings from the restrictions. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") concluded that the remaining restrictions were reasonable in time, place, and manner, and qualified as content-neutral, because they were based on secondary effects (i.e., the health concerns) of the assemblies at issue. The first question presented is:

Can broad-based restrictions on peaceable assemblies held on private property be upheld as valid time, place, and manner regulations based on a State's interest in slowing the spread of disease, even though, based on speech content, the State exempts political gatherings that trigger health concerns at least as severe as the restricted gatherings?

Under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Court has required more searching review of government regulation that impinges on basic values that underlie our society, including the right to engage in the common occupations of life. Although the Massachusetts COVID-19 restrictions required many individuals to wholly shutter their businesses for an extended period, the SJC analyzed Petitioners' due process claims under the lenient standards normally applied to routine business regulations of lesser scope. The second question presented is:

Did the SJC apply the wrong standard of review when it evaluated Petitioners' objections to severe restrictions on their personal liberty under a lenient, rational-basis standard of review?

Can broad-based restrictions on peaceable assemblies held on private property be upheld as valid time-place-manner regulations based on a State's interest in slowing the spread of disease, even though the State exempts political gatherings that trigger health concerns at least as severe?