Thread by @DavidAFrench

This is an excellent development, and the opinion is exactly right. Capitol Hill Baptist's plan -- outdoor services, socially-distanced and masked -- was extremely responsible based on everything we now know about the virus. Yet DC said no, while it said yes to mass protests. /1

https://twitter.com/ERLC/status/1314933495513468928

The key line from the opinion is below. In plain English it means that it's time for courts to stop simply deferring to the judgment of local officials and start applying standard levels of scrutiny to state actions during a pandemic: /2

That doesn't mean that all pandemic measures should be struck down. It means that the time of simple judicial acceptance is over. Mask mandates pass legal review easily. But placing more restrictions on outdoor worship services than outdoor protests or outdoor dining? Nope. /3

I've written about this. It's time for "pandemic law" (defined as extreme judicial deference to ALL pandemic regulations) to end. Reasonable regulations can survive even rigorous judicial review. Favoritism and discrimination should not. /4 frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/its-time-for…

Anyway, the opinion is excellent and readable. I've linked it below. Capitol Hill Baptist challenged the city reasonably and responsibly. It sought accommodation, it applied best practices, and still it was rebuffed. Congratulations on this early win. /end ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_p…