PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court won't force states to speed up church reopenings



Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
05-30-2020, 10:43 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-wont-force-states-040533836.html


USA TODAY
Supreme Court won't force states to speed up church reopenings
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
USA TODAYMay 29, 2020, 11:45 PM CDT
WASHINGTON – A deeply divided Supreme Court refused Friday night to allow churches in California and Illinois to reopen during the coronavirus pandemic with more worshippers than state plans permit.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who cast the deciding vote in the more consequential California case announced just before midnight, said choosing when to lift restrictions during a pandemic is the business of elected officials, not unelected judges. He was joined in the vote by the court's four liberal justices.

Roberts, the only one of the five to explain his vote, compared in-person church services to other forms of assembly. His conservative colleagues who dissented compared the services to secular businesses.

"Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment," Roberts wrote. "Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time."

Writing for three of the four conservative justices who dissented, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh said California's current 25% occupancy limit on churches amounted to "discrimination against religious worship services."

"The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries," Kavanaugh wrote.

The legal battle reached the nation's highest court days before Pentecost Sunday, when churches that have been restricted to virtual or drive-by services since before Easter are eager to greet congregants.

In the California case, the court sided with Gov. Gavin Newsom's decision to limit in-church gatherings to 25% of capacity, and no more than 100 people.

In a second, separate case arising in Illinois, the justices earlier denied two Romanian American churches' petition because Gov. J.P. Pritzker lifted his state's restrictions Friday, making the complaint essentially moot. The court said the churches could file "a new motion for appropriate relief if circumstances warrant."

The religious disputes over governors' reopening plans are most heated in states that impose limits on religious gatherings. While 30 states no longer have prohibitions, 20 and the District of Columbia impose restrictions, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. They are most severe in California, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington.

More: As churches reopen, Supreme Court faces balancing act between physical and spiritual health

President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and many religious leaders have demanded that state and local governments treat churches the same as most businesses. Last week, Trump labeled churches, synagogues and mosques as "essential places that provide essential services."

Monica Asitimbay prays at Holy Trinity Church in Hackensack, New Jersey, on Sunday, May 17, 2020, the first the day the church reopened during the coronavirus pandemic.
Monica Asitimbay prays at Holy Trinity Church in Hackensack, New Jersey, on Sunday, May 17, 2020, the first the day the church reopened during the coronavirus pandemic.
But some states and public health authorities, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have linked religious services to outbreaks of COVID-19. In one example, the CDC said 38% of those attending a rural Arkansas church in early March caught the virus, resulting in four deaths.

The churches have become the latest protesters against strict state coronavirus restrictions. Legal battles have stretched from California to Virginia and from Minnesota to Mississippi.

The petitions that reached the high court came from a Pentecostal church in southern California and two Romanian American churches in Illinois. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom retreated during the dispute and agreed to allow churches to reopen at 25% capacity, with a limit of 100 parishioners. In Illinois, Pritzker's reopening plan initially carried a 10-person limit.

"With each passing Sunday, churches are suffering under the yoke of the governor’s unconstitutional orders prohibiting churches from freely exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs requiring assembling themselves together to worship God," lawyers for the Illinois churches had argued in court papers.

Illinois noted in response that its strict limit was expiring Friday, to be followed by no mandatory restrictions but with public health guidance about best practices. For that reason, the attorney general's office said, the churches' challenge was moot.

In the California case, the South Bay United Pentecostal Church warned in court papers that planned church reopenings in defiance of state orders could lead to "widespread civil unrest" and a "constitutional crisis."

But the state countered that its reopening guidelines were measured in light of the pandemic's risk to public health.

"When the attendance restriction proves unnecessary, the state will lift it or loosen it," the attorney general's office said in court papers. "In light of the tremendous uncertainty continuing to surround this new and deadly virus, however, it would be rash to do so today."

En route to the Supreme Court, federal district and appeals court judges ruled against the churches in both states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit noted that the coronavirus is "a highly contagious and often fatal disease for which there presently is no known cure."

The Supreme Court's slim conservative majority, with Roberts in agreement, has come down on the side of religious liberty consistently in recent years. In the next few weeks, the high court will decide if state funds can be used to help pay religious school tuition, if employers with religious or moral objections can refuse to offer insurance coverage for contraceptives and if religious employers can sidestep job discrimination laws.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Church reopenings: Supreme Court refuses to force governors' hands.

Definitely wrong decision.
Roberts joined the lockstep votes of four Christian hating liberal judges.
Makes you wonder about the guy-especially when remembering his flipping on the obamacare case.
Anytime a judge joins in with those four liberal worms- he has definitely went against the Constitution.



""Roberts, the only one of the five to explain his vote, compared in-person church services to other forms of assembly.""
Did Roberts forget that there is an amendment that sets apart religion to be a separate entity -with special protections?
Seems to me that he did...--Tyr

Gunny
05-30-2020, 12:14 PM
If the issue is the business of elected officials and not unelected judges, then why is this issue in any court, much less being heard by the US Supreme Court? And since when was it the business of elected officials to dictate to churches when they can and cannot open?

IMO, it is the decision of the churches and congregations. I also agree with the dissent that it is no different than secular bussinesses which are basically being strong-armed into reopening. Going to church or going to Wal Mart?

I personally am doing neither. But once again, John Roberts sides with the enemy.

Black Diamond
05-30-2020, 12:57 PM
If the issue is the business of elected officials and not unelected judges, then why is this issue in any court, much less being heard by the US Supreme Court? And since when was it the business of elected officials to dictate to churches when they can and cannot open?

IMO, it is the decision of the churches and congregations. I also agree with the dissent that it is no different than secular bussinesses which are basically being strong-armed into reopening. Going to church or going to Wal Mart?

I personally am doing neither. But once again, John Roberts sides with the enemy.

Well said. And for the millionth time, the left is united and the right isn't. Wonder how the left keep getting their way. Smh

claudius2019
06-08-2020, 02:43 PM
It's bad, but not as bad as the conservative press makes it out to be. Here is what Roberts actually wrote (none of the liberal justices had a single word to say as to why they ruled the way they did):


CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS , concurring in denial of applica-
tion for injunctive relief.


The Governor of California’s Executive Order aims to
limit the spread of COVID–19, a novel severe acute respir-
atory illness that has killed thousands of people in Califor-
nia and more than 100,000 nationwide. At this time, there
is no known cure, no effective treatment, and no vaccine.
Because people may be infected but asymptomatic, they
may unwittingly infect others. The Order places temporary
numerical restrictions on public gatherings to address this
extraordinary health emergency. State guidelines cur-
rently limit attendance at places of worship to 25% of build-
ing capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees.


Applicants seek to enjoin enforcement of the Order.
“Such a request demands a significantly higher justification
than a request for a stay because, unlike a stay, an injunction
does not simply suspend judicial alteration of the status quo
but grants judicial intervention that has been withheld by
lower courts.” Respect Maine PAC v. McKee, 562
U. S. 996 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2
SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH v. NEWSOM
ROBERTS , C. J., concurring. This power is used where “the legal
rights at issue are indisputably clear” and, even then, “sparingly
and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances.”
S. Shapiro, K. Geller,T. Bishop, E. Hartnett & D. Himmelfarb,
Supreme Court Practice §17.4, p. 17-9 (11th ed. 2019) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases).


Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on
places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with
the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Similar
or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular
gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings,
spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large
groups of people gather in close proximity for extended
periods of time. And the Order exempts or treats more
leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery
stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither
congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for
extended periods.


The precise question of when restrictions on particular
social activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a
dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable
disagreement. Our Constitution principally entrusts “[t]he
safety and the health of the people” to the politically ac-
countable officials of the States “to guard and protect.” Ja-
cobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905). When
those officials “undertake[ ] to act in areas fraught with
medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must
be especially broad.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S.
417, 427 (1974). Where those broad limits are not exceeded,
they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “une-
lected federal judiciary,” which lacks the background, com-
petence, and expertise to assess public health and is not ac-
countable to the people. See Garcia v. San Antonio
Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 545 (1985).
That is especially true where, as here, a party seeks.
Cite as: 590 U. S. ____ (2020) 3.


ROBERTS , C. J., concurring emergency relief in an interlocutory
posture, while local officials are actively shaping their response
to changing facts on the ground. The notion that it is “indisputably
clear” that the Government’s limitations are unconstitutional
seems quite improbable.


After reading the actual text of Robert's opinion, I see that it's not a final determination of whether CA's covid restrictions violate the 1st Amendment, it's only an application for an injunction, in advance of actually litigating the case itself.

These are granted when it's so painfully obvious that the people seeking the injunction are gonna win, that a judge grants the relief in advance of most of the evidence being heard. This is only going to granted in extreme situations, where irreparable harm is certain to occur, and there is almost zero doubt that they will succeed when the case is actually heard in front of the court.

Roberts also kinda gives lip service to the idea that CA elected officials are closer to the situation on the ground, and are accountable to the voters ( :laugh: ) so their opinions as to the best thing to do should be taken seriously. * eyeroll* Where was this kind of deference to "local conditions as they exist on the ground in the several states" and "not being preached to by Washington DC", when he upheld Obamacare?

So yeah, Roberts was a coward, and not at all a real conservative. But something that happens on the court is that a lot of conservative judges become squishy middle-of-the-roaders over time, and the reason they do this, is so they can be the swing vote in cases, and exercise probably more power over more people, than anyone in the world, other than maybe the president. Just by being a wishy washy middle of the roader like Kennedy.

Hot Dogger
06-08-2020, 04:34 PM
The Supreme Court has always put the needs of Government before People. Justice Roberts is a rotten judge, a horrible person, and an idiot who needs to be fired from the country.

icansayit
06-08-2020, 07:46 PM
Most of the churches, and other places of worship have ALREADY had their congregations come together.

Only the Radical Democrat Judges would insist they are breaking the Law. Trouble is. The FIRST AMENDMENT overshadows anything those IDIOTS say.

claudius2019
06-09-2020, 01:51 PM
My understanding was that originally, the churches were completely shut down, while liquor stores, weed shops, Walmart, and other connected companies were allowed to stay open. But due to the filing of this lawsuit, Newsome "allowed" churches to open, but with strict occupancy limits.

What pissed me off the most was, legal protests at the state capitol were broken up by the CA Highway Patrol, since gatherings of any time above a certain number of people had been "made illegal", These were peaceful protests saying "Hey, you can't just take our Constitutional rights away just like that, there is supposed to be Due Process".

Funny how the BLM protests practically got a police escort, and none of them were arrested for protesting. Or even looting and burning down buildings. WTF? Special rights? It would appear so.