U.S. Supreme Court blocks N.Y. coronavirus limits on houses of worship
By: Jessica Gresko The Associated Press
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
U.S. Supreme Court blocks N.Y. coronavirus limits on houses of worship
An American flag flies in front of the Supreme Court in Washington in June, 2012. (Alex Brandon / AP)
WASHINGTON -- As coronavirus cases surge again in the U.S., the Supreme Court late Wednesday barred New York from enforcing certain limits on attendance at churches and synagogues in areas designated as hard hit by the virus.
The justices split 5-4 with new Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the majority. It was the conservative's first publicly discernible vote as a justice. The court's three liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented.
The move was a shift for the court. Earlier this year, when Barrett's liberal predecessor, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was still on the court, the justices divided 5-4 to leave in place pandemic-related capacity restrictions affecting churches in California and Nevada.
The court's action Wednesday could push New York to reevaluate its restrictions on houses of worship in areas designated virus hot spots. But the impact of the court's action is also muted because the Catholic and Orthodox Jewish groups that sued to challenge the restrictions are no longer subject to them.
The Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America have churches and synagogues in areas of Brooklyn and Queens previously designated red and orange zones. In those red and orange zones, the state had capped attendance at houses of worship at 10 and 25 people, respectively. But the those particular areas are now designated as yellow zones with less restrictive rules neither group challenged.
The justices acted on an emergency basis, temporarily barring New York from enforcing the restrictions against the groups while their lawsuits continue. In an unsigned opinion the court said the restrictions "single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment."
"Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty," the opinion said.
The opinion noted that in red zones, while a synagogue or church cannot admit more than 10 people, businesses deemed "essential," from grocery stores to pet shops, can remain open without capacity limits. And in orange zones, while synagogues and churches are capped at 25 people, "even non-essential businesses may decide for themselves how many persons to admit."
Roberts, in dissent, wrote that there was "simply no need" for the court's action. "None of the houses of worship identified in the applications is now subject to any fixed numerical restrictions," he said, adding that New York's 10 and 25 person caps "do seem unduly restrictive."
"The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not. And it is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic," he wrote.
Roberts and four other justices wrote separately to explain their views. Barrett did not.
The court's action was a victory for the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Jewish synagogues that had sued to challenge state restrictions announced by Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Oct. 6.
The Diocese of Brooklyn, which covers Brooklyn and Queens, argued houses of worship were being unfairly singled out by the governor's executive order. The diocese argued it had previously operated safely by capping attendance at 25 per cent of a building's capacity and taking other measures. Parts of Brooklyn and Queens are now in yellow zones where attendance at houses of worship is capped at 50 per cent of a building's capacity, but the church is keeping attendance lower.
"We are extremely grateful that the Supreme Court has acted so swiftly and decisively to protect one of our most fundamental constitutional rights -- the free exercise of religion," said Randy Mastro, an attorney for the diocese, in a statement.
Avi Schick, an attorney for Agudath Israel of America, wrote in an email: "This is an historic victory. This landmark decision will ensure that religious practices and religious institutions will be protected from government edicts that do not treat religion with the respect demanded by the Constitution."
Two lower courts had sided with New York in allowing the restrictions to remain in place. New York had argued that religious gatherings were being treated less restrictively than secular gatherings that carried the same infection risk, like concerts and theatrical performances. An email sent early Thursday by The Associated Press to the governor's office seeking comment was not immediately returned.
There are currently several areas in New York designated orange zones but no red zones, according to a state website that tracks areas designated as hot spots.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [Buzz of the Orient]
Tags
Who is online
93 visitors
So now we can see that Associate Justice Amy Barrett follows precedent, not the previous opinion on the same issue of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but the opinion of Ebeneezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol that it is a good thing to "reduce the excess population". I think I have an idea which direction the SCOTUS will be going now - in fact maybe Trump WILL have a chance to serve a second term if the question goes before the SCOTUS.
[(deleted)] This isn't Communist China.
Actually wouldn't have any problem with far right religious fanatics being slapped down.
Your constitutional rights don't mean shit to this private citizen [(deleted)]
Your "constitutional" rights aren't what you seem to think they are.
[removed]
"Freedom of religion" only goes so far.
No, it isn't, it more like the land of the stupid. Well, maybe it will help in thinning the herd of wackos.
The Westborough Baptist church in Topeka Ks. is a case in point.
If it wasn't for 24/7/365 protection from the cops it would have burnt to the ground many years ago.
I'm thinking cops have better things to do with my tax dollars than protect religious fascist fanatics.
Actually this was a great victory for the Constitution.
In case anyone missed it:
In an unsigned opinion the court said the restrictions "single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment."
That is called DISCRIMINATION. And there is no doubt about it. The progressive secularists as we see elsewhere around here routinely denigrate religion. I'm so glad to see Justice Roberts now writing the minority opinion for those three justices who always stick together. As for the governor of New York, he may have been born a Catholic, but he is clearly a secularist, who has no regard for the Constitution.
Sometimes I wonder if conservaties still tether their horses at the watering trough. But I guess you're right, the unbelievable climbing infection and death numbers is no reason to not allow people to fill the churches and synagogues, because of the Constitution. As I said in my first comment, conservatives must prefer that America reduces its excess population.
I don't think you understand. We have a Constitution that allows for restrictions on places of worship during a pandemic - but - you can't let 10,000 people protest and close down places of worship. It's one or the other.
You see, Cuomo and mayor de Blasio could have just as easily discouraged protests, without condemning their message, in the name of public health and exercised discretion to suspend enforcement for public safety reasons instead of encouraging what they knew was a flagrant disregard for their own social distancing rules. Instead they allowed the protesters anything they wanted.
Progressives want it both ways!
The article indicated that there was discrimination against churches/synagogues because businesses did not have restrictions yet churches/synagogues did, not that protests were the issue.
I understand. That was enough. The special treatment for protesters is just more icing on the cake - my favorite example! Just more evidence of bias by elected officials. They could have been sued along those lines as well.
I don;t know how businesses handled the pandemic in NY, but I understand many did not allow people in if they didn't wear masks, and perhaps they only let a certain number in at a time. The bank I use here not only STILL does that, but takes customers' temperaturs as well. There hasn't been case anywhere near our city for about 5 months. Do churches/synagogues do that?
Another example that religion is evil and the supreme court doesn't deserve respect. They are nothing more than a political arm of the party that puts them there.
I'm going to turn off my computer a little earlier tonight, and it looks like this seed needs moderation, so I'm locking it for the night but will unlock it in about 10 or 11 hours from now.
This seed is now open for civil comments - although I'm sure everyone is busy eating their turkey and trying not to argue about the election. LOL
LOL. Absolutely.
There needs to be recourse for the state to impose emergency medical limitations ( in order to protect people from themselves )
short of martial law.
If the new Court insists that religious feelings trump the Constitution, what's the point? Libertarians have won.
Since when is it necessary for people to be inside a church or synagogue to pray?
Never.
Not a requirement by my Creator. The only requirement by my Creator is that your prayers be sincere. HE does not listen to lies and phony BS, but, HE does make note of them, and they go into HIS database.
Anyone deity that requires that people be in a specific place or type of building for them to listen to the peoples' prayers is not the kind of deity that I wish to follow, as I am not one to want to hold my prayers until I can enter such a place.
My heart is free, and so are my prayers. And the deity I follow is willing to hear them 24/7 wherever I am.
People have many reasons. But since the free exercise of religion is protected by the Constitution, it is not incumbent on them to justify it to anyone. Rather, the burden is on the government to show that its restrictions respond to a compelling government interest and that they are using the least restrictive method available to satisfy that interest.
Nobody stopped people from praying. A church could perform its service OUTSIDE.
That's not all church is.
Some can. Some do. Mine does. But we have space for it, and also it's Southern California. The weather tends to be pretty nice.
Not every church has an outdoor space available - especially in a crowded city. And you have spent any time in New York in the winter?
There is recourse, but it has to be FAIR! The minute a governor ok's mass gatherings for a protest as was done for the protests involving George Floyd, he/she can't then put restrictions on places of worship. These medical limitations you speak of weren't considered when the governor allowed 5,000 people or 10,000 people marching across the Brooklyn Bridge.
What is a bigger health risk than that?
If Cuomo had been even handed he would have been acting within the limits of the Constitution. He didn't.
In everyone's opinion, not just yours.
Of course he can. Outdoor vs indoor is not an apples to apples comparison and you know it.
Of course they were, the President at the time said it will all go away with warm weather and sunshine.
Similar numbers of people breathing the same indoor air like the failed rally in Tulsa that still infected and killed Hermann Cain
and others.
He did. It's now after the fact and SCOTUS will be challenged again. Some day.
THAT is a prediction.
If you're claiming to make public policy based "on the science" then you should be able to show ample evidence that churches taking precautions are a source of spiking cases. (Same with restaurants, by the way) If no such evidence is presented, then you aren't following the science when you arbitrarily limit attendance at churches.
It looks to me as if the churches were setting limits that made more sense anyway. For example,
and
Churches obviously come in different sizes, so how does a set number of 10 or 25 make sense scientifically? In a large church, those numbers might be unnecessarily restrictive, but in a tiny church, those numbers might actually be too high, forcing people closer together than is safe. Instead, the churches were limiting capacity based on a percentage of normal maximum occupancy.
The government may be going along with that standard now, but absent this ruling, there would have been nothing preventing them from going back to it.
It is no wonder that America is suffering with ever-increasing record numbers of infections and death, DAILY. Americans refuse to meet a deadly nation-wide lethal danger with a united effort. What would that take? An invasion by aliens? God help you.
You show the same flaw in reasoning that the government of New York employed. Where is your evidence that churches are the reasons there is so much Covid in America? One wonders what your explanation would be for Covid spikes in other parts of the world.
The church is just a microcosm of society. What is happening there is what is happening throughout the USA. I'm sorry that you can't understand that, and if you can, that you refuse to accept it.
I notice that your personal comment in no way addresses the content of my comment.
Well, then, maybe this dialogue is just a waste of time anyway.
This ruling is a bunch of bull. The new justice is a nutjob that should never have been seated.
It is basically giving any religious institution free reign to do what ever they want with no restrictions.
It doesn't do that at all.
It is saying that a governor cannot put any restrictions on them. Sounds exactly like that to me.
No. Read the first line in the story.
It is not so sweeping as to say "no restrictions at all."
Sounds kinda broad to me. What are the certain limits? Are they defined?
I expect it refers to the specific limits being contested in the actual case at bar. New York can go ahead and establish other limits, but they would need to be of a type that reflected the concerns of the Court.
They were going by limits that were not even set at the time. Basically a hypothetical.
They want the Governor to set the limit for every individual church it seems.
That's not how emergency acts work.
After 10 pm - bedtime for me so I'm locking this seed for the (my) night and will (contrary what someone else does) unlock it in about 10 hours or so.
Oh dear, we have some who get upset when articles get locked!
Did you ask their permission?
Later
Yes, especially if those persons encounter comments that REQUIRE a reply, but then "too bad" eh?
Okay Vic, to show that I'm open-minded I've just unlocked this seed for civil comments. The only person I need to ask permission from on this site is Perrie.
Right on Buzz! Perrie is the only Boss on this site. No one else has the right to claim that authority. Anyone else that thinks they have the right to assume that position needs to talk to Perrie first. But, I don't think she would be of the mind to relinquish her position of Boss of NT to anyone, no matter what they think of themself.
Thank you, SCOTUS, for upholding the U.S. Constitution.
Well done!
Even if everyone in the crowded places of worship and their family and friends ALL were to succumb to the virus, the Constitution mustl be followed to the dotted "i".. Interesting isn't it that it's better that half the population of the USA should die as long as the Constitution prevails.
Nothing remotely close to that is even plausible, much less probable, in the worst of all possible scenarios.
It was obviously an exaggeration for the purpose of making a point for those who have trouble understanding a gentler method of doing so.
To put things in perspective for those who have trouble being sensible - Anne Frank and 7 other people hid in a 450 square foot attic for 761 days quietly trying to remain undiscovered to stay alive. Why are Americans not capable of doing their part to keep everyone safe and spend a few weeks at home.?
I can normally appreciate such a device and use it myself on occasion. However, in recent months, you seem to be in the habit of making lots of exaggerations about Americans - some rooted in ignorance or innocence - so I thought I would ask for a modicum of restraint or, if you were serious, explore the facts.
I think many are. Many were - 8 months ago. Now they are weary of what seems like arbitrary and irrational restrictions from government.
And anyway, the reality of life is that we make choices all the time to accept a certain amount of death as a consequence of the lifestyles we choose. We have decided our freedom is worth certain costs.
What an awful price to pay.
Perhaps had there been effective leadership in the beginning, and a unified effort at that time rather than a patchwork quilt of response there would not have been reason to be weary now. Unified concern for the collective good and compliance for good reasons has worked elsewhere, but unfortunately Americans did not defend themselves from a common enemy in a common way - and you do not blame failed leadership for that?
Well, if it were effective, then I guess all those good things would follow by definition.
Europe has also struggled with this, especially spikes in recent weeks. Perhaps the love of freedom in both America and Europe has been a friend to the virus. I don't think it's a secret that an oppressive government might operate more consistently or efficiently than a democracy. The question is who wants to live under its thrall?
To listen to certain members, they already do
and would rather take their chances with the virus than wear a mask
listen to a democratic Governor, stop smoking
wear helmets or seat belts
because of their God Given Rights as Americas to live free or die.
It really is sad.
and the rest of the world sees it.
Butt, we don't...
Its thrall? Oppressive? LOL. Other than the fact that I can't open YouTube and some other sites that there are alternatives for here anyway, I'm living every bit as free and happy a life, in some respects even better, than I enjoyed in Canada. It is such an unbelievable MYTH that Americans covet that their life being so "FREE" is so much better than life in China. So go to it FREEDOM lovers, don't follow the guidelines, be selfish and irresponsible, kill your parents, friends and grandparents, and enjoy your ruined economy and debt that your great-great-grandchildren will be saddled with, but it's okay because after all, you're FREE. I'm not critical of democracy, I'm critical of those who think that they are so much better off in a democracy (that has been so well illustrated to the rest of the world this past month) that they do anything they possibly can to try to FORCE every other nation in the world to emulate its "perfections", and failing to do so will do whatever they possibly can to interfere with their domestic affairs and cause dissent and financial problems for them.
Since nothing has been posted on this seed for the past two days I am now locking it permanently.