SCOTUS Rules Against Cuomo's 10 Person Cap at Churches/Synagogues

[CrusaderFrank]

SCOTUS RULES AGAINST CUOMO’S 10 PERSON CAP AT CHURCHES/SYNAGOUGES. “Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.”

The regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.1 In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of “essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, campgrounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities.

The disparate treatment is even more striking in an orange zone. While attendance at houses of worship is limited to 25 persons, even non-essential businesses may decide for themselves how many persons to admit. These categorizations lead to troubling results. At the hearing in the District Court, a health department official testified about a large store in Brooklyn that could “literally have hundreds of people shopping there on any given day.” Yet a nearby church or synagogue would be prohibited from allowing more than 10 or 25 people inside for a worship service. And the Governor has stated that factories and schools have contributed to the spread of COVID–19, but they are treated less harshly than the Diocese’s churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues, which have admirable safety records.

Because the challenged restrictions are not “neutral” and of “general applicability,” they must satisfy “strict scrutiny,” and this means that they must be “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” state interest.

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.” 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 District Court noted that “there ha[d] not been any COVID–19 outbreak in any of the Diocese’s churches since they reopened,” and it praised the Diocese’s record in combatting the spread of the disease. It found that the Diocese had been constantly “ahead of the curve, enforcing stricter safety protocols than the State required.” Similarly, Agudath Israel notes that “[t]he Governor does not dispute that [it] has rigorously implemented and adhered to all health protocols and that there has been no outbreak of COVID–19 in [its] congregations.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf

AMY!

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law. None of this is true. Clearly they are legislatting from the bench. The Constitution does recognize emergencies and as it does when it allows a President to suspend habeas corpus.

Maybe read the First Amendment

 

[pknopp]

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law.

It seems pretty clear ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Memorize it.

People are still free to practice their religion just not in huge crowds.

25% or 10 people. Rules that are not in place for a place of business. If you can spread it at church, you can spread it at work.

 

[Blues Man]

The Constitution deals with the federal government.

So what NYC does as far as building capacity is concerned does not violate the First Amendment.

 

[Blues Man]

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law.

It seems pretty clear ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Memorize it.

People are still free to practice their religion just not in huge crowds.

25% or 10 people. Rules that are not in place for a place of business. If you can spread it at church, you can spread it at work.

Fair point.

The building capacity laws should be equal.

 

[pknopp]

The Constitution deals with the federal government.

So what NYC does as far as building capacity is concerned does not violate the First Amendment.

No. The Constitution also deals with state governments also. An unconstitutional law is unconstitutional whether it's a federal or state law. State laws are overturned all the time.

 

[Blues Man]

The Constitution deals with the federal government.

So what NYC does as far as building capacity is concerned does not violate the First Amendment.

No. The Constitution also deals with state governments also. An unconstitutional law is unconstitutional whether it's a federal or state law. State laws are overturned all the time.

The laws on building capacity are not unconstitutional.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law.

It seems pretty clear ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Memorize it.

No one is preventing any worship. Only the form of it is being regulated. Churches have become super spreaders of the coronavirus.

The First Amendment couldn't be any clearer on this matter. In America, government has no business whatsoever closing down places of worship.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Constitution deals with the federal government.

So what NYC does as far as building capacity is concerned does not violate the First Amendment.

Wow.

Did Obama teach you law?

 

[Blues Man]

The Constitution deals with the federal government.

So what NYC does as far as building capacity is concerned does not violate the First Amendment.

Wow.

Did Obama teach you law?

Building capacity laws are a matter for the state since they are not mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Constitution deals with the federal government.

So what NYC does as far as building capacity is concerned does not violate the First Amendment.

Wow.

Did Obama teach you law?

Building capacity laws are a matter for the state since they are not mentioned in the Constitution.

So are zoning codes, but so what. There's no prohibition in the Constitution against zoning codes

 

[pknopp]

The Constitution deals with the federal government.

So what NYC does as far as building capacity is concerned does not violate the First Amendment.

No. The Constitution also deals with state governments also. An unconstitutional law is unconstitutional whether it's a federal or state law. State laws are overturned all the time.

The laws on building capacity are not unconstitutional.

No. Unfairly enforcing them are.

 

[Blues Man]

The Constitution deals with the federal government.

So what NYC does as far as building capacity is concerned does not violate the First Amendment.

Wow.

Did Obama teach you law?

Building capacity laws are a matter for the state since they are not mentioned in the Constitution.

So are zoning codes, but so what. There's no prohibition in the Constitution against zoning codes

So then you shouldn't have any problem with the state determining what are the allowable capacities for buildings.

 

[Blues Man]

The Constitution deals with the federal government.

So what NYC does as far as building capacity is concerned does not violate the First Amendment.

No. The Constitution also deals with state governments also. An unconstitutional law is unconstitutional whether it's a federal or state law. State laws are overturned all the time.

The laws on building capacity are not unconstitutional.

No. Unfairly enforcing them are.

I already agreed with you on that.

The law itself is not unconstitutional

 

[pknopp]

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law.

It seems pretty clear ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Memorize it.

People are still free to practice their religion just not in huge crowds.

25% or 10 people. Rules that are not in place for a place of business. If you can spread it at church, you can spread it at work.

Fair point.

The building capacity laws should be equal.

WHich is what this was ruled on.

 

[Blues Man]

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law.

It seems pretty clear ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Memorize it.

People are still free to practice their religion just not in huge crowds.

25% or 10 people. Rules that are not in place for a place of business. If you can spread it at church, you can spread it at work.

Fair point.

The building capacity laws should be equal.

WHich is what this was ruled on.

Then it's not a first amendment issue

 

[pknopp]

The Constitution deals with the federal government.

So what NYC does as far as building capacity is concerned does not violate the First Amendment.

No. The Constitution also deals with state governments also. An unconstitutional law is unconstitutional whether it's a federal or state law. State laws are overturned all the time.

The laws on building capacity are not unconstitutional.

No. Unfairly enforcing them are.

I already agreed with you on that.

The law itself is not unconstitutional

As I said, irrelevant. Unfair enforcement is and that is what this ruling came down on.

 

[pknopp]

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law.

It seems pretty clear ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Memorize it.

People are still free to practice their religion just not in huge crowds.

25% or 10 people. Rules that are not in place for a place of business. If you can spread it at church, you can spread it at work.

Fair point.

The building capacity laws should be equal.

WHich is what this was ruled on.

Then it's not a first amendment issue

Whether you understand it or not, it is. But in the end it's irrelevant. It's unconstitutional however you want to argue it.

 

[Blues Man]

The Constitution deals with the federal government.

So what NYC does as far as building capacity is concerned does not violate the First Amendment.

No. The Constitution also deals with state governments also. An unconstitutional law is unconstitutional whether it's a federal or state law. State laws are overturned all the time.

The laws on building capacity are not unconstitutional.

No. Unfairly enforcing them are.

I already agreed with you on that.

The law itself is not unconstitutional

As I said, irrelevant. Unfair enforcement is and that is what this ruling came down on.

Where in the link provided by the OP did it say that?

 

[Blues Man]

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law.

It seems pretty clear ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Memorize it.

People are still free to practice their religion just not in huge crowds.

25% or 10 people. Rules that are not in place for a place of business. If you can spread it at church, you can spread it at work.

Fair point.

The building capacity laws should be equal.

WHich is what this was ruled on.

Then it's not a first amendment issue

Whether you understand it or not, it is. But in the end it's irrelevant. It's unconstitutional however you want to argue it.

Show me precedent where building capacity limits have been deemed unconstitutional. Not the unfair enforcement but the laws themselves.

 

[pknopp]

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law.

It seems pretty clear ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Memorize it.

People are still free to practice their religion just not in huge crowds.

25% or 10 people. Rules that are not in place for a place of business. If you can spread it at church, you can spread it at work.

Fair point.

The building capacity laws should be equal.

WHich is what this was ruled on.

Then it's not a first amendment issue

Whether you understand it or not, it is. But in the end it's irrelevant. It's unconstitutional however you want to argue it.

Show me precedent where building capacity limits have been deemed unconstitutional. Not the unfair enforcement but the laws themselves.

I'm not interesting in arguments like this. No one argued or ruled that building capacity limits couldn't be enacted. It was argued they could not be unfairly enforced thereby restricting someone's rights.