The Supreme Court blocked New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s restrictions on attendance on religious services amid rising COVID-19 cases in the state.
“Just before midnight on the night before Thanksgiving, the Supreme Court blocked New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo from enforcing attendance limits at religious services,” wrote SCOTUSblog on Twitter. “The vote is 5-4, with Roberts and the three liberals dissenting.”
Just before midnight on the night before Thanksgiving, the Supreme Court blocked New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo from enforcing attendance limits at religious services. The vote is 5-4, with Roberts and the three liberals dissenting.
Here is the ruling: https://t.co/AI8VgygAPx https://t.co/yYuwY0piOO
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) November 26, 2020
The ruling comes after the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn sued the Democratic governor over his executive actions restricting church attendance earlier this month. In their 5-4 decision, the majority struck down the regulations since they “cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.”
The ruling marked a reversal from a previous Supreme Court case related to religious gatherings amid COVID-19 restrictions, siding with the regulations. That decision came when liberal jurist Ruth Bader Ginsburg was still on the bench. Ginsburg died on Sept. 18 and was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, nominated by President Trump.
The majority noted that New York had singled out houses of worship for more severe restrictions than businesses deemed “essential” by the governor.
“While attendance at houses of worship is limited to 25 persons, even non-essential businesses may decide for themselves how many persons to admit,” the majority wrote.
“Stemming the spread of COVID–19 is unquestionably a compelling interest, but it is hard to see how the challenged regulations can be regarded as ‘narrowly tailored,’” the majority continued. “They 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 applicants’ services.”
The court pointed out that some of the places of worship affected by the order have large capacities, calling into question the need for a hard cap on the number that can attend.
“It is hard to believe that admitting more than 10 people to a 1,000-seat church or 400–seat synagogue would create a more serious health risk than the many other activities that the State allows,” the majority wrote.
The court also asserted that responding to a pandemic does not mean that constitutional rights are suspended.
“Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area,” the majority wrote. “But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. 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.”
In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that Cuomo had moved the affected churches into less restrictive zones and that the court no longer needed to act. But the majority disagreed, noting that the governor could at any time move those places of worship back to more severe restrictions.
“The dissenting opinions argue that we should withhold relief because the relevant circumstances have now changed. After the applicants asked this Court for relief, the Governor reclassified the areas in question from orange to yellow, and this change means that the applicants may hold services at 50% of their maximum occupancy,” the majority wrote. “The dissents would deny relief at this time but allow the Diocese and Agudath Israel to renew their requests if this recent reclassification is reversed.”
Concurring with the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the First Amendment still applies, even in “times of crisis.”
“Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis,” Gorsuch wrote. “At a minimum, that Amendment prohibits government officials from treating religious exercises worse than comparable secular activities.”
Gorsuch pointed out that while Cuomo imposed severe restrictions on religious services, those same restrictions did not apply to “secular” businesses.
“So, at least according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians,” he wrote. “Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?”
“The only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as ‘essential’ as what happens in secular spaces,” Gorsuch continued. “Indeed, the Governor is remarkably frank about this: In his judgment laundry and liquor, travel and tools, are all “essential” while traditional religious exercises are not. That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids.”
The justice concluded by saying it was “past time” that courts act to protect constitutional rights.
“It is time — past time — to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques,” Gorsuch wrote.
