Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court of the United States of America on Friday rejected an application for temporary injunction filed by the South Bay Pentecostal Church against restrictions imposed by the California Governor to attend worship sites as part of COVID-19 regulatory measures.
In response to the COVID-19 epidemic, the Governor of California passed an executive order that forced attendance at worship sites to 25% of the building's capacity or the maximum number of 100 in attendance.
The majority - Chief Justice Robert, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - refused to pray to abide by these rules.
"The notion that" it is undeniably clear "that the Government's limitations are unconstitutional seems unlikely" said Judge President Robert.
It was noted that these restrictions appeared to be consistent with the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
"Although California guidelines impose restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear to be consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. where large groups of people congregate around extended periods of time.
The majority cited that the question of when to extend the limits was "very strong and very powerful". The rise and security of the people is entrusted to American accountability officials. When those officers "work to do things in places full of medical and scientific uncertainties," their size "must be very wide."
Where those broad limits can be exceeded, they should not be less than second guessed by an uneducated "federal jaure", with no background, ability and expertise to assess public health and not respond to people, the majority said. which arises in advance.
"This is especially true when, as here, the party seeks urgent help in the affected area, while local officials tie their response to turning the facts down", the majority said.
Opponent.
Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanugh have ignored that security guidelines discriminating against places of worship have allowed comparable businesses, in violation of the First Amendment.
"The biggest constitutional problem is that the country's businesses can be compared to 25% of the workforce, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, grocery stores, pharmacies, supermarkets, pet stores, bookstores, flower shops, hairdressers, and -cannabis. dispensaries ", Justice Kavanugh commented on the differences.
"To clarify its discriminatory management of religious praise activities, California must demonstrate that its laws are" endorsed by compulsory government interest "and" designed to further advance that interest. "California is undoubtedly interested in combating the spread of COVID-19 and protecting the lives of its citizens. But" the borders are used in a single way and liberated by another does little to advance these goals and to make the burden of religious freedom more ", he added.
"California has not shown any such reason. The Church has agreed to follow the Government's rules applicable to comparable international businesses. That raises important questions:" Considering all the same steps, why would anyone go shopping safely? way but not a stranger? And why would anyone get in touch with a brave delivery person but not have a strong attendant? "
California has many options that would allow it to combat the spread of COVID-19 without prejudice to religion.
"The State has a large area of line drawings, especially in an emergency.
"Overall, 25% of Californians who take up religious services are unfairly discriminating against religion, and such discrimination violates the First Amendment.
86540
103860
630
114
59824