• Sign In/Sign Up
  • Menu
  • +Clients Back

    • Get Free Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
  • +Lawyers

    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • News/Articles
  • Even In A Pandemic, Constitution Cannot Be Put Away: US SC Restrains Enforcement Of Strict Restrictions On Religious Services

Latest News

Back

Even In A Pandemic, Constitution Cannot Be Put Away: US SC Restrains Enforcement Of Strict Restrictions On Religious Services

Courtesy/By: Sanjeev Sirohi  |  02 Dec 2020     Views:531

It is a matter of great solace that the US Supreme Court just recently on November 25, 2020, in a latest, landmark and laudable judgment titled Roman Catholic Diocese Of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor Of New York in 592 US _ (2020) has restrained the authorities from enforcing the severe restrictions imposed by the New York Governor on attendance at religious services in areas classified as “red” or “orange” zones.

To start with, it is first and foremost pointed out that, “The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE BREYER and by him referred to the Court is granted. Respondent is enjoined from enforcing Executive Order 202.68’s 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on applicant pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.”

To be sure, it is then pointed out that, “This emergency application and another, Agudath Israel of America, et al. v. Cuomo, No. 20A90, present the same issue, and this opinion addresses both cases. Both applications seek relief from an Executive Order issued by the Governor of New York that imposes very severe restrictions on attendance at religious services in areas classified as “red” or “orange” zones. In red zones, no more than 10 persons may attend each religious service, and in orange zones, attendance is capped at 25. The two applications, one filed by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the other by Agudath Israel of America and affiliated entities, contend that these restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and they ask us to enjoin enforcement of the restrictions while they pursue the appellate review. Citing a variety of remarks made by the Governor, Agudath Israel argues that the Governor specifically targeted the Orthodox Jewish community and gerrymandered the boundaries of red and orange zones to ensure that heavily Orthodox areas were included. Both the Diocese and Agudath Israel maintain that the regulations treat houses of worship much more harshly than comparable secular facilities. And they tell us without contradiction that they have complied with all public health guidance, have implemented additional precautionary measures, and have operated at 25% or 33% capacity for months without a single outbreak.”

Needless to say, it is then pointed out that, “The applicants have clearly established their entitlement to relief pending appellate review. They have shown that their First Amendment claims are likely to prevail, that denying them relief would lead to irreparable injury, and that granting relief would not harm the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 20 (2008). Because of the need to issue an order promptly, we provide only a brief summary of the reasons why immediate relief is essential.”

Be it noted, it is then pointed out that, “Likelihood of success on the merits. The applicants have made a strong showing that the challenged restrictions violate “the minimum requirement of neutrality” to religion. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 533 (1993). As noted by the dissent in the court below, statements made in connection with the challenged rules can be viewed as targeting the “ ‘ultra-Orthodox [Jewish] community.’ ” ___ F. 3d ___, ___, 2020 WL 6750495, *5 (CA2, Nov. 9, 2020) (Park, J., dissenting). But even if we put those comments aside, the regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for, especially harsh treatment. Compare Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 29) (directive “neutral on its face”).”

What is more striking is that it is then mentioned that, “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. See New York State, Empire State Development, Guidance for Determining Whether a Business Enterprise is Subject to a Workforce Reduction Under Recent Executive Orders, https://esd.ny.gov/guidance-executive-order-2026. 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.”

More damningly, it is then pointed out that, “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.” App. to Application in No. 20A87, Exh. D, p. 83. 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, id., Exh. H, at 3; App. to Application in No. 20A90, pp. 98, 100, but they are treated less harshly than the Diocese’s churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues, which have admirable safety records.”

Truth be told, it is then conceded that, “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. Church of Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 546. 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, (See Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___ (2020) (directive limiting in-person worship services to 50 people); South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___ (2020) (Executive Order limiting in-person worship to 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever was lower), 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. ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___, 2020 WL 6120167, *2 (EDNY, Oct. 16, 2020). It found that the Diocese had been constantly “ahead of the curve, enforcing stricter safety protocols than the State required.” Ibid. Similarly, Agudath Israel notes that “[t]he Governor does not dispute that [it] ha[s] rigorously implemented and adhered to all health protocols and that there has been no outbreak of COVID–19 in [its] congregations.” Application in No. 20A90, at 36.”     

More significantly, it is then pointed out in this judgment that, “Not only is there no evidence that the applicants have contributed to the spread of COVID–19 but there 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. Almost all of the 26 Diocese churches immediately affected by the Executive Order can seat at least 500 people, about 14 can accommodate at least 700, and 2 can seat over 1,000. Similarly, Agudath Israel of Kew Garden Hills can seat up to 400. 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.”

Interestingly enough, it is then observed about irreparable harm that, “There can be no question that the challenged restrictions if enforced, will cause irreparable harm. “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality opinion). If only 10 people are admitted to each service, the great majority of those who wish to attend Mass on Sunday or services in a synagogue on Shabbat will be barred. And while those who are shut out may in some instances be able to watch services on television, such remote viewing is not the same as personal attendance. Catholics who watch a Mass at home cannot receive communion, and there are important religious traditions in the Orthodox Jewish faith that require personal attendance. App. to Application in No. 20A90, at 26–27.”

While then dwelling on the public interest, it is then elucidated that, “Finally, it has not been shown that granting the applications will harm the public. As noted, the State has not claimed that attendance at the applicants’ services has resulted in the spread of the disease. And the State has not shown that public health would be imperilled if less restrictive measures were imposed.”

To be very frank, it is then held that, “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. 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. Before allowing this to occur, we have a duty to conduct a serious examination of the need for such a drastic measure.”

While dwelling on the dissenting opinions, it is then held that, “There is no justification for that proposed course of action. It is clear that this matter is not moot. See Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449, 462 (2007); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 189 (2000). And injunctive relief is still called for because the applicants remain under a constant threat that the area in question will be reclassified as red or orange. See, e.g., Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. S. 149, 158 (2014). The Governor regularly changes the classification of particular areas without prior notice. Recent changes were made on the following dates: Monday, November 23; Thursday, November 19; Wednesday, November 18; Wednesday, November 11; Monday, November 9; Friday, November 6; Wednesday, October 28; Wednesday, October 21. If that occurs again, the reclassification will almost certainly bar individuals in the affected area from attending services before judicial relief can be obtained. At most Catholic churches, Mass is celebrated daily, and “Orthodox Jews pray in [Agudath Israel’s] synagogues every day.” Application in No. 20A90, at 4. Moreover, if reclassification occurs late in a week, as has happened in the past, there may not be time for applicants to seek and obtain relief from this Court before another Sabbath passes. Thirteen days have gone by since the Diocese filed its application, and Agudath Israel’s application was filed over a week ago. While we could presumably act more swiftly in the future, there is no guarantee that we could provide relief before another weekend passes. The applicants have made the showing needed to obtain relief, and there is no reason why they should bear the risk of suffering further irreparable harm in the event of another reclassification. For these reasons, we hold that enforcement of the Governor’s severe restrictions on the applicants’ religious services must be enjoined. It is so ordered.”

Justice Gorsuch in his concurring opinion underscores that, “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. 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. 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. Nor is the problem an isolated one. In recent months, certain other Governors have issued similar edicts. At the flick of a pen, they have asserted the right to privilege restaurants, marijuana dispensaries, and casinos over churches, mosques, and temples. See Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting). In far too many places, for far too long, our first freedom has fallen on deaf ears. 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 colour-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques.”

Justice Kavanaugh also in his concurring opinion strongly rules that, “There also is no good reason to delay issuance of the injunctions, as I see it. If no houses of worship end up in red or orange zones, then the Court’s injunctions today will impose no harm on the State and have no effect on the State’s response to COVID–19. And if houses of worship end up in red or orange zones, as is likely, then today’s injunctions will ensure that religious organizations are not subjected to the unconstitutional 10-person and 25-person caps. Moreover, issuing the injunctions now rather than a few days from now not only will ensure that the applicants’ constitutional rights are protected, but also will provide some needed clarity for the State and religious organizations. On this record, the applicants have shown: a likelihood that the Court would grant certiorari and reverse; irreparable harm; and that the equities favour injunctive relief. I, therefore, vote to grant the applications for temporary injunctive relief until the Court of Appeals in December, and then this Court as appropriate, can more fully consider the merits.”

But Chief Justice Roberts dissents. He says that, “To be clear, I do not regard my dissenting colleagues as “cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic,” yielding to “a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis,” or “shelter[ing] in place when the Constitution is under attack.” Ante, at 3, 5–6 (opinion of GORSUCH, J.). They simply view the matter differently after careful study and analysis reflecting their best efforts to fulfil their responsibility under the Constitution.”

To sum up, this judgment minces no words to make it clear that when business as usual can go on in other places then why should religious places alone be made to face the brunt? The point is absolutely valid! Why can’t religious places be allowed to function after imposing some reasonable restrictions like wearing masks, wearing hand gloves, maintaining distance etc? It is most refreshing, most rejuvenating and most relaxing to see that the US Supreme Court has ruled rightly on this even though the US Chief Justice Roberts dissented on it! Very rightly so!


Courtesy/By: Sanjeev Sirohi  |  02 Dec 2020     Views:531

News Updates

The Legal Framework of Bail Conditions in India: B...
25 Oct 2024     Views:5855
Changing an Arbitrator Mid-Proceeding: Legal Frame...
23 Oct 2024     Views:5284
IMF Retains India's FY25 GDP Growth Forecast at 7%...
22 Oct 2024     Views:5265
The Evolving Landscape of Russian Anti-Suit Injunc...
22 Oct 2024     Views:5054
Hyundai’s IPO vs Competitors: How the Auto Giant...
15 Oct 2024     Views:5077
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Post Decree...
14 Oct 2024     Views:4727
SEBI Issues Checklist for AIFs, Their Managers, an...
08 Oct 2024     Views:5116
The Siemens v. Russian Railroads Case...
07 Oct 2024     Views:5108
Empowering Minds in Confinement: Bombay HC’s Lan...
03 Oct 2024     Views:5223
The Dynamics of Novation in Contract Law and Its I...
02 Oct 2024     Views:5407
SEBI Establishes Consistent Evaluation Standards f...
01 Oct 2024     Views:5113
Landmark Decision by Austrian Supreme Court on Arb...
30 Sep 2024     Views:5089
Key Considerations for Indian Commercial Claims...
25 Sep 2024     Views:5040
Boom or Bust: Africa’s Oil Giants Face Declining...
23 Sep 2024     Views:5158
The Growing Role of Arbitration in Intellectual Pr...
23 Sep 2024     Views:5118
Supreme Court Greenlights Sub-Classification of SC...
20 Sep 2024     Views:5440
SEBI's Employee Grievances Prompt Formation of Wor...
19 Sep 2024     Views:5270
Environmental Law in India: Challenges and Opportu...
18 Sep 2024     Views:6100
Navigating the New Legal Landscape of Exclusive Ju...
16 Sep 2024     Views:5233
The Anatomy of Joint Venture Breakups in India (an...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5574
The Integration of ESG in India's M&A Landscape...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5478
Future of AI in Legal Systems and Conflict Resolut...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5666
World Health Assembly Revises International Health...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5520
Pokemon GO Fans Concerned Over Restrictive New Ter...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5637
Landmark Judgment on Setting Aside Arbitration Awa...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5422
Understanding the Process of Issuing Summons in In...
11 Jul 2023     Views:8800
Understanding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)...
10 Jul 2023     Views:7351
Understanding the Mental Health Act in India: A St...
09 Jul 2023     Views:7395
Combating Manual Scavenging in India: A Call for S...
07 Jul 2023     Views:7192
Impleadment in Supreme Court of India: A Comprehen...
05 Jul 2023     Views:8145
Unraveling the Distinction: Culpable Homicide vs. ...
03 Jul 2023     Views:7489
Understanding the Difference between Money Bills a...
02 Jul 2023     Views:6030
Understanding the Civil Procedure Code in India: A...
01 Jul 2023     Views:6806
The Rights of Criminals in India: Upholding Justic...
30 Jun 2023     Views:6070
Exploring the Differences between the US and India...
29 Jun 2023     Views:6075
What to Do If the Police Refuse to Register Your F...
26 Jun 2023     Views:6323
Timeline of Environmental Protocols: A Global Effo...
25 Jun 2023     Views:6023
How to Deal with Cheque Bounce Cases in India...
24 Jun 2023     Views:6003
Pursuing a Lucrative Litigation Career in Indian L...
22 Jun 2023     Views:6053
Understanding the Emergency Provisions of India: S...
21 Jun 2023     Views:6017
Environment Legislation in India: A Comprehensive ...
20 Jun 2023     Views:6373
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
18 Jun 2023     Views:5876
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
17 Jun 2023     Views:5902
Timeline of Same-Sex Laws in India: A Journey Towa...
16 Jun 2023     Views:6348
Sir Creek Dispute and Legal Implications...
15 Jun 2023     Views:6543
Jurisprudence of NDPS Laws in India: A Comprehensi...
14 Jun 2023     Views:6121
Impleadment Proceedings: A Comprehensive Guide to ...
13 Jun 2023     Views:6555
Understanding Continuing Mandamus: A Powerful Judi...
12 Jun 2023     Views:8519
Res Judicata: The Doctrine of Finality in Legal Pr...
10 Jun 2023     Views:6557
Mastering the Art of Legal Drafting: A Comprehensi...
08 Jun 2023     Views:6219
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CP...
07 Jun 2023     Views:11860
Understanding the Laws of War: Protecting Humanity...
03 Jun 2023     Views:5941
Understanding the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC...
02 Jun 2023     Views:6789
The National Drug and Psychotropic Substances (NDP...
01 Jun 2023     Views:6368
A Step-by-Step Guide: How to File an FIR in India...
31 May 2023     Views:6067
Zero FIR: An Effective Tool for Prompt Criminal Ju...
30 May 2023     Views:6301
Unveiling the Dissent of Judges in Judicial Judgme...
28 May 2023     Views:5945
Environmental Laws in India: Safeguarding Nature f...
25 May 2023     Views:6395
The Recusal of Supreme Court of India Judges from ...
24 May 2023     Views:6066
Understanding the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Cour...
23 May 2023     Views:6513
Article 142 of the Constitution of India: A Compre...
22 May 2023     Views:6724
Landmark Judgments in Arbitration Law in India: A...
21 May 2023     Views:6949
Landmark Cases on Anticipatory Bail in India: A Pa...
20 May 2023     Views:10840
Embracing the Future: How AI is Revolutionizing th...
18 May 2023     Views:6163
Understanding Narcotics Laws in India: A Comprehen...
17 May 2023     Views:6027
Understanding Indian Laws on Cross-Border Transact...
16 May 2023     Views:7156
ADR mechanism of legal adjudication in India...
15 May 2023     Views:5875
Validity of foreign arbitral award in India throug...
14 May 2023     Views:5889
Scope of Section 151 CPC...
13 May 2023     Views:7464
Detailed Overview on Section 482 of Crpc...
11 May 2023     Views:6411
Scope of Decree under CPC...
10 May 2023     Views:5969
Legal development of Arbitration Laws in India....
09 May 2023     Views:6011
Arbitration Laws in India...
07 May 2023     Views:5954
Impact of COVID-19 on Legal Industry...
06 May 2023     Views:8059
Chargesheet not having authority's valid sanction ...
02 May 2023     Views:6232
Same-Sex Marriage in India...
30 Apr 2023     Views:5877
National Commission for Women...
27 Apr 2023     Views:5730
Law making process of India....
26 Apr 2023     Views:6814
Bail Provisions in India...
25 Apr 2023     Views:5753
Life imprisonment in Criminal Law in India...
24 Apr 2023     Views:6166
Contempt of Court...
23 Apr 2023     Views:6008
The collegium system of Judiciary in India....
22 Apr 2023     Views:5693
Remarriage before Expiry of Limitation Period to f...
21 Apr 2023     Views:5694
Need for strict measure of NDPS laws in India....
20 Apr 2023     Views:5849
Nature of Offence under Section 138 of NI Act is Q...
19 Apr 2023     Views:8282
Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Plaint cannot be rejected m...
18 Apr 2023     Views:6891
Mediation: At the Dawn of Golden Age organized at ...
16 Apr 2023     Views:5975
Central Government's motto should be mediate, not ...
15 Apr 2023     Views:5690
Ambedkar Jayanti Celebrations...
14 Apr 2023     Views:5893
Supreme Court of India calls for Preventive Measur...
12 Apr 2023     Views:5461
Pursuing LL.M is not break in Law Practice, Rules ...
11 Apr 2023     Views:5680
Law should take into consideration realities of co...
10 Apr 2023     Views:5513
Delhi High Court said that peeping into public bat...
08 Apr 2023     Views:6108
Delhi High Court denies bails to AAP's Satyendra J...
06 Apr 2023     Views:6231
Supreme Court’s Triple Talaq Judgement Would App...
30 Jan 2023     Views:5957
Article 311(1) | An Order of Removal From Service ...
26 Jan 2023     Views:6437
Leaders shouldn't disrespect the President or Pri...
17 Jan 2023     Views:5740
New bench will hear Ashwini Upadhyay's Supreme Cou...
15 Jan 2023     Views:5878
Person Who Drove Rashly with the Knowledge that it...
12 Jan 2023     Views:6462
The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot b...
11 Jan 2023     Views:6202
FIND A LAWYER




FIND A LAW SCHOOL



Most Read News Articles

  • Sabrimala Verdict (28 sept 2018) - A End of Taboo.
    On 07 Oct 2020    Views:96190
  • Case Analysis: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India
    On 11 Dec 2020    Views:73753
  • Case Analysis: THE BERUBARI UNION CASE
    On 14 Dec 2020    Views:71172
  • DOCTRINE OF ELECTION UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
    On 08 Jul 2020    Views:70311
  • A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88)
    On 08 Nov 2020    Views:59670
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1128 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

Lawsisto Direct

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.