Posted on 12/15/2020 9:12:37 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a Colorado church challenging the state's capacity restrictions on houses of worship during the coronavirus pandemic, the latest order from the high court, now with a 6-3 conservative majority, in favor of churches and synagogues seeking to hold worship services during the ongoing crisis.
In an order with three dissents, the high court tossed out an August decision from the federal district court in Colorado that kept the attendance limits in place and sent the dispute back to the lower courts for further consideration in light of its November order barring New York from enforcing capacity restrictions at houses of worship.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer dissented in the Colorado case, writing it is moot because Colorado lifted the attendance limits in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in the challenge to New York's coronavirus restrictions.
The dispute over the capacity restrictions was brought by High Plains Harvest Church, a church in Ault, Colorado, and its pastor, Mark Hotaling. Colorado capped attendance at houses of worship to 25% of their posted occupancy limit, not to exceed 50 people, in specific geographic zones as part of its efforts to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus. But the church argued the limitations violated the First Amendment and claimed the state was discriminating against religious gatherings in favor of secular gatherings.
But the federal district court in August and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in November declined to block enforcement of the capacity restrictions.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Oh look! SCOTUS is trying to look relevant
mitigate
Our masters have decided to palliate us by letting us go to church. But we are still forbidden to say or write that we have seen evidence that our national voting system is riddled with fraud.
Will Catholic Bishops have the COURAGE to increase allowed attendance BEFORE CHRISTMAS???
This is the bone these gowned frauds throw us for pushing a fraudulent election forward. No thanks.
Colorado Ping ( Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
Notice CBS provides links to other decisions and filing, but no link for this decision. They don’t even give the case title. Here is the decision. It is brief.
UNITED STATES _________________
No. 20A105
_________________
HIGH PLAINS HARVEST CHURCH, ET AL., v. JARED
POLIS, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
[December 15, 2020]
The application for injunctive relief, presented to JUSTICE
GORSUCH and by him referred to the Court, is treated as a
petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, and the petition is granted. The August 10 order of the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado is vacated, and
the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit with instructions to remand to the
District Court for further consideration in light of Roman
Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U. S. ___ (2020).
JUSTICE KAGAN, with whom JUSTICE BREYER and
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because this case is moot. High
Plains Harvest Church has sought to enjoin Colorado’s capacity limits on worship services. But Colorado has lifted
all those limits. The State has explained that it took that
action in response to this Court’s recent decision in Roman
Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U. S. ___ (2020).
See Brief in Opposition 15. Absent our issuing different
guidance, there is no reason to think Colorado will reverse
course—and so no reason to think Harvest Church will
again face capacity limits. When “subsequent events” thus
show that a challenged action cannot “reasonably be expected to recur,” a case is well and truly over. Friends of
the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC),
Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 189 (2000) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Whereas the lefties might be right, it was important SCOTUS be on record in this scenario for future scenarios.
6-3 along party lines.
Roberts is not a liberal. A liberal would have voted with the RAT judges on this one. But nor has Trump “cemented a conservative majority for decades”.
Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are all swing votes, and the jury is out on Barrett.
We are supposed to be at 50%... can only reserve 50 seats in church that hold 219.
So upset more Texas Catholics dont read what Gov has in EO 27 & 29... NO CAPACITY LIMIT NO MASKS REQUIRED BUT RECOMMENDED.
Repugnant to the Constitution is Null and Void
+1
As some columnist recently pointed out (I forget who), Roberts is trying to look like a middle-of-the-road, non-ideological, bridge-the-gap, unite-as-all, reach-across-the-aisle person, by voting sometimes with and sometimes against the rock-hard-solid-liberal bloc.
But as s/he pointed out, EVERY ONE of his conservative votes has been on cases that are more or less inconsequential, while on every single case that actually is important and far-reaching - he has voted liberal.
Notice that this one was basically a moot point, given the recent NY houses-of-worship decision.
Very much like the Warren Burger court was in the mid 70s to early 80s. They had a "conservative majority" on paper, and Chief Justice Burger was a right-of-center guy and supposed wanted to curtail the "liberal excesses" of the Earl Warren era.
But in reality, liberals won on all the important cases in that era, and Chief Justice Burger sided with them on quite a few horrible "landmark" decisions, to show how he was a "pragmatic" conservative willing to find common ground with the other side. Aside from Rehnquist (who was associate justice at that time), most of the other supposedly "conservative, strict constructionist" justices, like Sandra Day O'Connor and Lewis Powell, weren't much "better" than Burger.
I predicted this one several years ago, so I was ahead of the curse with most FReepers. I said the new "conservative" justices we have now are actually a big step down from the Rehnquist era of the late 90s and early 2000s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.