Not to mention a few professors at my law school who posted articles from the media, without reading the opinion.
I did tackle it with one non-lawyer friend, and got a several page rant on how I was disingenuous or an ignoramus who doesn't know how to read. I had an OP drafted for DU, but deleted it since I knew I didn't have the energy to respond to what would almost certainly be a lot of flack because of preconceived notions what the Trump appointees may well ultimately do (but didn't in this case) .
10,000 foot summary:
The S Ct decided nothing beyond putting a temporary pause on enforcement. (I do think they screwed that up - right now the churches are in the yellow zone and the rules don't apply to them)
In order to put a temporary pause, they have to predict how they would probably rule (1) once the appellate court decides the orders are constitutional (or not) and (2) the losing party seeks cert, and (3) the Supreme Court decides to grant it.
Seven of the 9 said that they see a major problem in the orders because they targeted religion specifically (religious events are capped at 10 and 25 in the red and orange zones, respectively), rather than risky behavior. Kagan and Sotomayor believes the orders favor religion (which doesn't change the analysis . . . but that's another post).
BUT - in a very good sign - all 5 of the justices in the majority plus Roberts expressly said COVID is a compelling reason to enforce generally applicable restrictions - even against religious events.
(Per curiam) {T}here are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services. Among other things, the maximum attendance at a religious service could be tied to the size of the church or synagogue.
(Gorsuch concurrence) As almost everyone on the Court today recognizes, squaring the Governor’s edicts with our traditional First Amendment rules is no easy task. People may gather inside for extended periods in bus stations and airports, in laundromats and banks, in hardware stores and liquor shops. No apparent reason exists why people may not gather, subject to identical restrictions, in churches or synagogues, especially when religious institutions have made plain that they stand ready, able, and willing to follow all the safety precautions required of “essential” businesses and perhaps more besides.
(Kavanaugh concurrence) In light of the devastating pandemic, I do not doubt the State’s authority to impose tailored restrictions—even very strict restrictions—on attendance at religious services and secular gatherings alike. But the New York restrictions on houses of worship are not tailored to the circumstances given the First Amendment interests at stake. To reiterate, New York’s restrictions on houses of worship are much more severe than the California and Nevada restrictions at issue in South Bay and Calvary, and much more severe than the restrictions that most other States are imposing on attendance at religious services. And New York’s restrictions discriminate against religion by treating houses of worship significantly worse than some secular businesses.
So all that has to be done is to revise the orders to focus on risk behavior - not the entity that is engaging in it.
For example, we all know singing is risky - and singing happens in church. But instead of limiting attendance to 10 people in a 1000 seat megachurch, prohibit indoor singing (in church and anywhere else).
If the risk is everyone charging the doors at the same time to get in or out, require timed or staggered entry at all events (religious or not).
= new reply since forum marked as read
