Re-reading Tandon, and struck by this whopper at very start. RCD actually said NY laws weren't neutral and gen. app. "because they single[d] out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment." BK pressed most-favored-nation theory, but wasn't maj op, and no other maj op cited.

Note that while first paragraph of Tandon per curiam relies on BK's concurring RCD opinion, which in turn relies on his dissent in Calvary Chapel, very next paragraph in Tandon ignores BK's rejection of threshold comparability analysis in CC.

Compare BK in CC w/ Ct. in Tandon:

Note also that first paragraph of Tandon analysis includes the word "comparability" in sentence describing Kavanaugh's concurrence in RCD, but that word does not actually appear in his RCD concurrence. It's only in Gorsuch's separate concurrence.

So not only was MFN a dissenting position as of last July, there were still two different versions of MFN being proposed in RCD concurrences, and yet the Court is now lecturing 9th Circuit that some version of MFN had been made "clear" prior to last night.

Ludicrous.

Tandon per curiam wants reader to believe that Court had made "clear" by last Nov. what neutrality and general applicability meant, and then cites Gorsuch's version of "comparability" analysis from Nov. concurrence as controlling.

Here's Gorsuch in Dec., dissenting in Danville:

Not content to misrepresent the legal landscape before last night, the per curiam decision then proceeds to misrepresent the comparability analysis in the court below.

Compare Ct's description of 9th Cir. comparability analysis with actual 9th Cir. analysis:

Justice Kagan points this out, and offers this unassailable conclusion: