Posted on 04/10/2021 7:55:27 AM PDT by lightman
The Supreme Court ruled late on Friday night that California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) does not have the power to restrict at-home prayer meetings on account of COVID, in a huge win for religious liberty. In a 5-4 ruling, the court concluded that Newsom did not have the power to restrict the rights of those practicing religion, while allowing secular activities to resume.
Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett argued that Newsom’s edicts are discriminatory toward religious practice.
“California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts, and indoor restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time,” they wrote.
The conservative justices pointed out that the Ninth Circuit, where an appeal is pending, did not conclude that secular activities “pose a lesser risk of transmission than applicants’ proposed religious exercise at home.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor sided with Newsom’s restrictive order. Kagan argued that secular and at-home religious activities need not be treated equally as far as restrictions go.
“California limits religious gatherings in homes to three households. If the State also limits all secular gatherings in homes to three households, it has complied with the First Amendment. And the State does exactly that: It has adopted a blanket restriction on athome gatherings of all kinds, religious and secular alike. California need not, as the per curiam insists, treat at-home religious gatherings the same as hardware stores and hair salons—and thus unlike at-home secular gatherings, the obvious comparator here,” she wrote in her dissent.
The court’s ruling delivered another loss to Newsom, who is currently embattled in a recall effort.
No surprises, but one huge disappointment.
Supreme Court rules against California’s limits on in-home religious gatherings!
The ruling stated that before it can limit religious gatherings, the government must prove they pose a greater danger than secular activities that remain open, such as shopping or attending movies.
“Otherwise, precautions that suffice for other activities suffice for religious exercise too,” the majority opinion said, adding that California “treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts and indoor dining at restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time.”
Even more so since he’d been voting the other way on this issue. So, Kavanaugh is the new swing justice ( big assumption: the new one doesn’t “grow” in office).
About the best you can say on SCOTUS justices is that Trump tried to keep us where we were.
Those two DAMN Bushes... Suter, Roberts.
Good decision, but the pandemic is over. I don’t see a lot of courage here. They could have fast-tracked this and made this decision last summer. Don’t forget this court also punted on the election.
1) Very sad that this was only a 5-4 decision. Very sad, too, that this had to go all the way to the Supreme Court.
2) Very sad that this had to be won at the home-study level and not at the “church service” level.
3) It’s quite obvious that some (Newsom, Whitmer, Cuomo, Lightfoot, et al) see COVID as a catch-all reason to quash freedoms, religious or otherwise. Very sad we have so many tyrants in positions of authority.
This is much more a win for the right of freedom of assembly.
Pulling that comment back. Just read the article in depth.
It could make the same ruling that small businesses were forced to close while places like Walmart, Home Depot and Bed Bath & Beyond could do business as usual. It was all a big joke that busted many small business owners.
I am confused. In reading the dissent comment above, it looks like California did treat secular and religious meetings the same. No more than three householders in one house.
hard to believe that any justice would vote against freedom of religion
He has been a complete and utter dismal failure. There must be a seriously bad file on him being used against him.
As Grampa Dave said, this points to a belief that none of this is about safety.
"This is the fifth time the Court has summarily rejected the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of California’s COVID restrictions on religious exercise."
Looks like they are rubbing the 9th nose in the 9th pile of dog poop!
Knowing California, we may have to have our 4th amendment ruled on to keep them out of our homes:
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You are correct. A retired conservative lawyer said that the 6’ of separation rule besides not being effective was the most damaging rule to small businesses.
How many non-Jewish, non-Catholics are on the Supreme Court? Just asking for most of the people I know that are neither. I don’t have a problem with either, but it seems kind of strange to me.
I’m a little confused here. State rights cannot overrule federal mandates in direct conflict. This has been a question throughout this exercise in hammering the first amendment concerning religion and free speech.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
State or local laws held to be preempted by federal law are void not because they contravene any provision of the Constitution, but rather because they conflict with a federal statute or treaty, and through operation of the Supremacy Clause.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law.
So why is there a question at all. As usual, it isn’t a matter of right or wrong, it’s what the libs can get away with. And they don’t even try to cloak their work any more. Where’s the GOP? Simple...hiding.
wy69
The precedents are from the early 1900's, when the courts ruled the Constitution did not apply when the government was regulating things to do public medicine.
No Constitutional rights (or very, very limited) when dealing with vaccination and quarantine, rather like Martial law.
You can put Roberts down as yet another failure of the George W. Bush presidency..
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.