On Thanksgiving Day, while millions were digesting their meals, others were digesting a Supreme Court decision that came down the day before.
The Supreme Court late Wednesday night granted requests from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two Orthodox Jewish synagogues to block enforcement of a New York executive order restricting attendance at houses of worship.
Both the diocese and the synagogues claimed that Cuomo’s executive order violated the right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment, particularly when secular businesses in the area are allowed to remain open. Wednesday’s orders by a closely divided Supreme Court, which had turned down two similar requests over the summer by churches in California and Nevada, signal a Constitutional shift on the court since Justice Amy Coney Barrett replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in September.
The court divided 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with liberal Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
In a majority opinion, the court said the restrictions would violate religious freedom and are not neutral because they “single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.”
While religious institutions were affected, businesses categorized as essential could admit as many people as they wish, the court said, and the list of such businesses included acupuncture facilities, liquor stores and others the court said were not essential.
In his opinion, Neil Gorsuch accused the four dissenters of letting the Constitution wither on the vine just because of a ‘pandemic’.
A recalcitrant Governor Cuomo blamed a new conservative majority for the high court's COVID-19 decision. In remarks to reporters on Thursday, Cuomo said he thinks the ruling is irrelevant,
"It was really just an opportunity for the court to express its philosophy and politics" and that it was making a "statement" with the vote.”
Cuomo further suggested that he might reimpose restrictions in the future, because “this decision “isn't final”, it simply blocks restrictions for now while the appeal continues:
"It didn't affect our mass gathering rules," he added which are percentage based. "It didn't mention the overall limits."
These votes mark the first impact of Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the Court. She joined her four conservative brethren in blocking the limits whereas Justice Ginsburg anchored 5-4 majorities the other way in the spring. “The Constitution is still alive”, according to conservative pundits observing the proceedings.
Keep in mind there are three similar emergency applications regarding COVID restrictions on houses of worship pending at SCOTUS: one plea from Louisiana, one from New Jersey and one from California.
The NPUC (North Pacific Union Conference) PARL director, Andre Wang, recommends that Adventist churches in the NPUC “stay the course'“ in spite of the Supreme Court ruling. In a Northwest Adventist article he is advising churches—in spite of the Supreme Court ruling—to “observe state and local guidelines”, many of which are significantly restrictive in Oregon and Washington. We can only hope that some RL department somewhere sees the SC decision as a god thing... None have said so, yet.
****