In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court sided with religious organizations in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions put in place by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo limiting the number of people attending religious services, CNN reported.
The Court agreed that the Governor’s “rules can be viewed as targeting the ‘ultra-Orthodox [Jewish] community,’” and violate the First Amendment by treating religious exercise worse than secular activities.
The case is the latest pitting religious groups against city and state officials seeking to stop the spread of Covid-19, and it highlights the impact of Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the Court. The decision comes as coronavirus cases surge across the country.
In the late-night decision, Barrett sided with her conservative colleagues in the dispute, while Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent. The ruling underscores Barrett’s impact on the bench, reflecting the Court’s rightward shift.
Last spring and summer, before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court split 5-4 on similar cases out of California and Nevada, with Roberts and the liberals in the majority siding against houses of worship. Barrett was confirmed in October to take Ginsburg’s seat.
The ruling, released just before midnight on Thanksgiving eve, contains several separate opinions and some unusually critical language.
In the main, unsigned opinion, the majority ruled in favor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America that argued that the restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because the regulations treated the houses of worship more harshly than comparable secular facilities.
The majority said that the regulations are “far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the Court, 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 religious services in question.
“Governor Cuomo should have known that openly targeting Jews for a special COVID crackdown was never going to be constitutional,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket and counsel to the plaintiffs. “But treating synagogues and churches worse than the pet stores, liquor stores, and department stores also just didn’t make any sense, particularly when Agudath synagogues and Brooklyn parishes have carefully and responsibly followed the rules. The Supreme Court was right to step in and allow Jews and Catholics to worship as they have for centuries.”
A true didan notzach on Yud Kislev. It will be only the beginning.
explain.
we need some more restrictions to stop the spread of covid.
Now we need wrongful death lawsuits for nursing home victims due to Cuomo’s forcing elderly infected Corona patients into nursing homes.
It’s also time the Nys legislature take back the power they gave him.
News today is that he got a raise! For WHAT?
Yes it’s definitely a big Didan Notzach
A true didan notzach on Thanksgiving.
A true didan notzach on 10 kisleiv
Now we know what to do to stop him from making this COVID vaccine mandatory
So now instead of limiting, he’ll just shut down the shuls and the businesses.
That’s also unconstitutional. He can threat to fine everyone, but I think people are starting to put their foot down and realizing that something’s gotta give…
The main point of the decision is NOT that he tried to regulate shuls too strictly, but that he tried to regulate shuls differently than other businesses, a Constitutional violation.
A victory for fair treatment of religious institutions, for sure. But not the great victory for “religious freedom” it’s being reported as!