Justice Amy Connie Barrett played a crucial role as the Supreme Court barred New York from enforcing certain coronavirus restrictions on religious services.
The Roman Catholic Church in New York City’s Brooklyn and Queen’s Boroughs and the Rhodesian Jewish Inns claimed to have challenged the limit on attendance at worship houses in areas severely affected by the virus.
10 and 25 people attended for the red and orange zones, respectively. However, the ruling will not have immediate effect as both groups are now in areas designated as yellow zones, where places of worship can hold up to 50 per cent of their maximum business services.
The Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to stop the execution of the measure, with Barrett, a new member of the court, casting a decisive vote. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and three liberal judges of the court disagreed.
Churches in California and Nevada earlier this year had disagreements over a decision with judgments on capacity limits.
In those cases, when Barrett’s predecessor, liberal Judge Ruth Bader was on Ginsburg Court, the judges voted 5–4 to overturn the restrictions imposed on religious services by the governor. Bassett, a devout and devout Catholic, was confirmed in court last month after Ginsberg’s death in September.
The court order addressed two petitions – one to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, which includes Brooklyn and Queens, and the other to Agudath Israel of the United States, two synagogues, and two others.
Both petitioners argued that the executive order of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, which imposed new state sanctions last month, was unfairly treating worship houses.
The synagogues argued that the governor’s restrictions had pushed the Orthodox Jewish community out. Cuomo “did not attack religious beliefs in general, but created a particular religion to blame and seek revenge for the emergence of a society-wide epidemic.”
New York said religious services are treated more favorably than secular gatherings that carry the same risk of infection, such as concerts and theater performances, which were completely banned.
But in the unsigned order, the majority court agreed that Cuomo’s restrictions violated the First Amendment’s protection of free practice of religion.
“The members of this court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of people with special expertise and responsibility in this area,” he says. “But even in epidemics the constitution cannot be forgotten.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch said in a contradictory opinion that Cuomo treated religious exercise more harshly than secular activities.
“Time to pass – a time of the past” While the epidemic posed many serious challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive orders that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but also shutter churches, synagogues and mosques. “He wrote.
In his disagreement, Roberts said the measures appear to be “inappropriately prohibited,” but added that “it is important for public health officials to override decisions about what is needed for public safety amid a deadly epidemic.”
In another disagreement, Judge Sonia Sotomoyer, joining Justice Elena Kagan, said she feared the ruling “would only exacerbate the country’s suffering.”
“The judges of this court are playing a deadly game in predicting the verdict of an expert on environmental health officials in which the contagious virus, which now infects one million Americans every week, spreads very easily.”
He added: “The non-religious duty religious exercise protects our constitutional rights from envy and jealousy. States will not discriminate against religious institutions, even if they face such a deadly crisis. These principles are not dangerous today.
“The Constitution does not prohibit states from responding to public health emergencies in the same way or in a more favorable way than non-religious organizations, especially when those rules are life-saving, as New York’s Covid-1 restrictions do just that. I respectfully disagree. “
Spencer Plate / Getty Images
