Supreme Court blocks Cuomo's orders against religious gatherings

[GURPS]

"Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten," they wrote.

The suit was brought by Catholic and Jewish groups from New York, who railed against the limitations as violations of their First Amendment rights.





The ruling read: "Citing a variety of remarks made by the Governor, Agudath Israel argues that the Governor specifically targeted the Orthodox Jewish community and gerrymandered the boundaries of red and orange zones to ensure that heavily Orthodox areas were included.

"Both the Diocese and Agudath Israel maintain that the regulations treat houses of worship much more harshly than comparable secular facilities. And they tell us without contradiction that they have complied with all public health guidance, have implemented additional precautionary measures, and have operated at 25% or 33% capacity for months without a single outbreak."

The ruling stated that "The applicants... have shown that their First Amendment claims are likely to prevail, that denying them relief would lead to irreparable injury, and that granting relief would not harm the public interest."

Supreme Court blocks Cuomo’s orders against religious gatherings

The Supreme Court has blocked the restrictions imposed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York which restricted the number of people allowed to worship together.

thepostmillennial.com

 

[kom526]

I remember when Roberts was going to single handedly going reverse Roe v Wade, repeal the civil rights act and strike down the 19th amendment; now he can't even get a ruling on government restrictions over religion correct.

 

[GURPS]

Huge Religious Liberty Win At SCOTUS Rejecting NY Lockdowns – What a difference a Barrett makes


The majority found a clear First Amendment violation:

The applicants have clearly established their entitlement to relief pending appellate review. They have shown that their First Amendment claims are likely to prevail, that denying them relief would lead to irreparable injury, and that granting relief would not harm the public interest….

But even if we put those comments aside, the regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.

In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of “essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities. See New York State, Empire State Development, Guidance for Determining Whether a Business Enterprise is Subject to a Workforce Reduction Under Recent Executive Orders, https://esd.ny.gov/guidance-executive-order-2026. The disparate treatment is even more striking in an orange zone. While attendance at houses of worship is limited to 25 persons, even non-essential businesses may decide for themselves how many persons to admit.

These categorizations lead to troubling results. At the hearing in the District Court, a health department official testified about a large store in Brooklyn that could “literally have hundreds of people shopping there on any given day.” App. to Application in No. 20A87, Exh. D, p. 83. Yet a nearby church or synagogue would be prohibited from allowing more than 10 or 25 people inside for a worship service. And the Governor has stated that factories and schools have contributed to the spread of COVID–19, id., Exh. H, at 3; App. to Application in No. 20A90, pp. 98, 100, but they are treated less harshly than the Diocese’s churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues, which have admirable safety records.

The majority tried to distinguish these restriction as more harsh than in the prior cases:

Stemming the spread of COVID–19 is unquestionably a compelling interest, but it is hard to see how the challenged regulations can be regarded as “narrowly tailored.” They are far more restrictive than any COVID–related regulations that have previously come before the Court,2 much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus at the applicants’ services.

Gorsuch wrote a separate concurring opinion:

As almost everyone on the Court today recognizes, squaring the Governor’s edicts with our traditional First Amendment rules is no easy task. People may gather inside for extended periods in bus stations and airports, in laundromats and banks, in hardware stores and liquor shops. No apparent reason exists why people may not gather, subject to identical restrictions, in churches or synagogues, especially when religious institutions have made plain that they stand ready, able, and willing to follow all the safety precautions required of “essential” businesses and perhaps more besides. The only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as “essential” as what happens in secular spaces. Indeed, the Governor is remarkably frank about this: In his judgment laundry and liquor, travel and tools, are all “essential” while traditional religious exercises are not. That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids.

In what appears to be swipe at Roberts, Gorsuch rejected the notion that the Court needs to “stay out of the way” on government restrictions on religious liberty in time of pandemic:

Why have some mistaken this Court’s modest decision in Jacobson [v. Massachusetts] for a towering authority that overshadows the Constitution during a pandemic? In the end, I can only surmise that much of the answer lies in a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis. But if that impulse may be understandable or even admirable in other circumstances, we may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well when we do….

It is easy enough to say it would be a small thing to require the parties to “refile their applications” later. Post, at 3 (opinion of BREYER, J.). But none of us are rabbis wondering whether future services will be disrupted as the High Holy Days were, or priests preparing for Christmas. Nor may we discount the burden on the faithful who have lived for months under New York’s unconstitutional regime unable to attend religious services. Whether this Court could decide a renewed application promptly is beside the point. The parties before us have already shown their entitlement to relief. Saying so now will establish clear legal rules and enable both sides to put their energy to productive use, rather than devoting it to endless emergency litigation. Saying so now will dispel, as well, misconceptions about the role of the Constitution in times of crisis, which have already been permitted to persist for too long. It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques.

 

[BOP]

Still wondering when these totalitarian governors are going to go after mosques.

 

[GURPS]

Still wondering when these totalitarian governors are going to go after mosques.

Cuomo doesn't have the back bone for such a move

 

[BOP]

Cuomo doesn't have the back bone for such a move

That's not all that bully is missing.

 

[Hijinx]

My Church was putting the Mass on facebook when it was closed down.
If it is closed down again I have made up my mind to one thing.
I am going to that Mass and they will have to call the Sherriff to keep me out.
If they arrest me I will take it to court as a violation of my First Amendment right to practice my religion.
I hope everyone will do the same thing. It's time to straighten this mess out

 

[GURPS]

Cuomo Loses In Supreme Court, Dismisses Ruling As Not Having ‘Any Practical Effect’

“That Supreme Court ruling on the religious gatherings is more illustrative of the Supreme Court than anything else,” Cuomo said, according to the New York Post. “It’s irrelevant of any practical impact because of the zone they were talking about is moot. It expired last week. It doesn’t have any practical effect. The lawsuit was about the Brooklyn zone. The Brooklyn zone no longer exists as a red zone. That’s muted. So that restriction is no longer in effect. That situation just doesn’t exist because those restrictions are gone.”

The Post added, “In its decision, the nation’s highest court said its decision temporarily blocking Cuomo’s executive order on the 10- and 25-person occupancy limits remains in effect pending further deliberation in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. They acknowledged the order narrowly addressed the zones in question, which are outdated.”

The Court noted that the plaintiffs “seek relief from an Executive Order issued by the Governor of New York that imposes very severe restrictions on attendance at religious services in areas classified as ‘red’ or ‘orange’ zones. In red zones, no more than 10 persons may attend each religious service, and in orange zones, attendance is capped at 25. The two applications, one filed by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the other by Agudath Israel of America and affiliated entities, contend that these restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and they ask us to enjoin enforcement of the restrictions while they pursue appellate review.”