Thus, it would seem that the right to assembly is not absolute, at least in the context of an epidemic requiring quarantines...and that would apply to religious as well as non-religious assemblies...No, SCOTUS has upheld state and federal quarantine authority.
With regard to quarantine, SCOTUS upheld the authority of the state and federal governments to impose quarantines. This is from the Harvard Law site:
"The Supreme Court passed upon the validity of federal quarantine powers under the Commerce Clause and the simultaneous power held by states to implement their own quarantines in Bartlett v. Lockwood in 1896. The Court held as unquestionable the "authority of Congress to establish quarantine regulations and to protect the country as respects its commerce from contagious and infectious diseases,"[126] . It also, however, recognized that this federal power did not invalidate state laws relating to the same policy domain, citing Congress's decision "in view of the different requirements of different climates and localities and of the difficulty of framing general law upon the subject, ...to permit the several States to regulate the matter of protecting the public health as to themselves seemed best."[127] The Court thus seemed to view the federal appropriation of a power which had traditionally belonged to the states as justified under the Commerce Clause. Another case before the court in 1896 presented the more pointed question of whether state or federal laws would prevail in the case of conflict, when the federal law was enacted under the authority of the Commerce Clause and the state law enacted for the purpose of regulating health. In Hennington v. Georgia , Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:
"If the inspection, quarantine, or health laws of a State, passed under its reserved power to provide for the health, comfort, safety of its people, come into conflict with an act of Congress, passed under its power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, such local regulations, to the extent of the conflict, must give way in order that the supreme law of the land—an act of Congress passed in pursuance of the Constitution—may have unobstructed operation."[128]
This ruling left little question that Congress could enact quarantine laws and the Surgeon General could enforce them even if those laws conflicted with state quarantine laws."
In the current situation, it would seem that with no federal response enacted, it is up to the states to individually decide about religious and other gatherings.