Supreme Court rules Against Gov Cuomo's Imposed Restrictions on Religious Gatherings

From NPR:

The court ruled that Gov. Andrew Cuomo's executive order violated the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause, and actively discriminated against religious institutions.

"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 unsigned majority decision read.

The 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissenting, comes as confirmed cases of coronavirus surge around the country.

Notably, the court's ruling is in contrast to two decisions it issued in May and June concerning churches in California and Nevada, which allowed state officials to restrict attendance at religious services. Those decisions came before Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the bench, giving the Supreme Court a conservative majority.

NPR Article


NY Times Article



Why does he have to impose anything?

I think he's well aware of constitutional rights. He can simply send out the message as a suggestion. People can make their own decisions.

Fatality rates for this disease is way under 1% (according to the CDC) for people all the way up to 69 years old. That will only improve with better treatment methods and drugs.

And trying to impose gathering restrictions in your own home.. He's out of line and certainly something more is up than just Covid.

a reply to: nOraKat

It's always interesting how the liberals on the court dissent against obviously outlined freedoms / protections in the constitution. May they never hold a majority.

I wouldn't be bothered at all if a few priests got covid.

Actually it would be a nice Christmas prezzie if all of them got it

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: nOraKat

It's always interesting how the liberals on the court dissent against obviously outlined freedoms / protections in the constitution. May they never hold a majority.

Right, now you know why a Conservative SCOTUS was important. The Liberals had already infected the Court.

President Trump or not, his SCOTUS picks were Premuim.

...and this dude was getting an award too, lmfao.

Loving this SCOTUS back hand on Cuomo.

a reply to: nOraKat

Roberts us a huge disappointment.
I don't understand his rulings or even believe he's conservative.

a reply to: nOraKat
Thank you President Trump for giving us a supreme court majority that rules on the law instead of making them. I cannot believe how much of a liberal justice Robert's really is.

It's like rbg died and her soul took residence in his arse. May the supreme court always have a constitutional majority.

originally posted by: mugger
a reply to: nOraKat

Roberts us a huge disappointment.
I don't understand his rulings or even believe he's conservative.

Seriously not liking that dude.

a reply to: mugger

It's not about being conservative or leftist. It's about following the damn Constitution.

Cuomo plainly overstepped Constitutionally protected rights. That should be all there is to it.

I read an article saying that Roberts has been shifting Center LEFT, but the opinion was that the Court was movibg fartger right, before ACB apparently. I don't buy it.

Roberts has slowly been softening up his stance. He isn't reliable anymore.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: mugger

It's not about being conservative or leftist. It's about following the damn Constitution.

Cuomo plainly overstepped Constitutionally protected rights. That should be all there is to it.

It just goes to show how far these people will go with thier percieved rationalizations.

Leftist are dictators, it's that simple. The Constitution stands in their way and they LOATH it, this racist artifact from the past.

Lol, think about it, the new world, the great reset, the Progressive agenda, all that remains is our Constitution and to them, it needs to go.

Prepare to fight for our Constitution.

a reply to: nOraKat

So far cuomo accused the Sheriffs of being dictators for refusing to obey HIS orders, can't wait to see what he calls the Supreme Court. NY will never change as long as the city and welfare keep reelecting this clown.

a reply to: nOraKat
Roberts dissented on this?? SMFH
What a disappointment he has been, yet another massive screw up by GWB.

Thank God President Trump was able to get Amy Coney Barrett in, yet another in a LONG list of accomplishments by this President.

F# cuomo AND roberts

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: mugger

It's not about being conservative or leftist. It's about following the damn Constitution.

Cuomo plainly overstepped Constitutionally protected rights. That should be all there is to it.

It just goes to show how far these people will go with thier percieved rationalizations.

Leftist are dictators, it's that simple. The Constitution stands in their way and they LOATH it, this racist artifact from the past.

Lol, think about it, the new world, the great reset, the Progressive agenda, all that remains is our Constitution and to them, it needs to go.

Prepare to fight for our Constitution.

Spot on!

Good anyone with even a passing understanding of the constitution should have seen that was an over reach.

I’m concerned as to why 4 justices ruled against the constitution.

a reply to: nOraKat

It's frightening that it's the leftist judges that would rule against the Constitution.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Good anyone with even a passing understanding of the constitution should have seen that was an over reach.

Everyone saw it except Liberals but they understand the Constitution, they just don’t want to follow it.

a reply to: watchitburn

YEAH he did. Cuomo overplayed his hand.

The really sad thing though is that the decision was 5-4 and not 9-0.

The Constitution is rather CLEAR on this type of issue.

IMHO, this shows evidence of just how close we are to losing ALL our Constitutional rights!

(Just one vote away....)

Here's the issue with what the states are doing:

If they wanted to say, "Hey, you have a building with a capacity of 100, and we want you to keep that at 50%." It would be fine, but they decided to pick and choose which buildings and which types of services, goods, etc., were more important than others in their opinion. So they created tiers of buildings that had different levels of restrictions based on a category of "essential" in their opinion.

And in the opinion of lots of these places, religious services were far, far down on the list of essential meaning religious services were stacked on the bottom of the tiers and among the most restricted services.

The problem with this is that religion and free exercise thereof is explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights, so they shouldn't be able to get away with it. The other issue is the Equal Protection Clause which should apply outside of the first consideration, and it ought to be an issue with the whole idea of ranking services, businesses as essential anyhow.