BREAKING: Supreme Court votes 5-4 to grant Catholic Diocese and orthodox Jews' request to block Gov. Cuomo's attendance limits at houses of worship in New York.
Chief Justice Roberts joins the three liberal justices in dissent.
Chief Justice Roberts joins the three liberal justices in dissent.
These votes mark the first marked impact of Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the Court and the country.
She joined her four conservative brethren in blocking the limits whereas Justice Ginsburg anchored 5-4 majorities the other way in the spring.
She joined her four conservative brethren in blocking the limits whereas Justice Ginsburg anchored 5-4 majorities the other way in the spring.
In dissent, CJ Roberts notes there is "no need" to grant relief to the religious organizations since the limits no longer apply. But he says if the limits return, they may well violate the Free Exercise Clause. 
Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissents more vociferously.
Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh write separate concurrences.
Interesting to ponder who wrote the anonymous per curiam (by the Court) opinion. Could be Thomas, Alito or Barrett.
From a quick read of the opinion, I get ACB vibes from the prose. It isn't prolix like a Thomas opinion. It lacks all snark, which disqualifies it as an Alito opinion. It is straightforward, clear, sober, assertive—matching Barrett's style from her writings on the 7th circuit.
In addition to the Breyer dissent, Justice Sotomayor writes a dissent that Justice Kagan joins.
A testy Gorsuch-Roberts tiff in the opinions tonight. Gorsuch lays on the sanctimony, accusing the four dissenters of letting the Constitution wither on the vine just because it's a pandemic. Roberts isn't happy being characterized that way—and defends his liberal colleagues too.
Roberts further defends himself from Gorsuch's attacks in the closing paragraphs of his dissent.
Keep in mind there are three similar emergency applications regarding COVID restrictions on houses of worship pending at SCOTUS: one (outrageous) plea from Louisiana, one from New Jersey and one from California.
The latest application was filed this afternoon
https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1331742561367699456?s=20
Hard to tell if Gorsuch was aiming to troll Roberts or Cuomo harder in his concurrence.
Amazed by how carried away Gorusch gets with his rhetoric in this concurrence. And he seems to forget that since COVID hit in late March he and his colleagues have been conducting hearings—and, I believe, conferences—remotely. They're kind of, you know, sheltering in place.
Not to mention his flip references to the governor ruling "by executive decree" and ubiquitous scare-quotes around "red zones" and "orange zones" as if Cuomo is just playing around with colors and not fighting a deadly pandemic.
Meanwhile, Kavanaugh eschews Gorsuch's scare quotes, dials the rhetoric way down, clarifies that "even very strict restrictions" on attendance may be OK, and goes out of his way to explain how narrow his disagreement is with Roberts.
A much more reasonable concurrence.
A much more reasonable concurrence.
But this claim in the per curiam opinion is jarring when juxtaposed with yesterday's news from Brooklyn
This meddling with state responses to the pandemic isn’t just a jurisprudential about-face on religious claims triggered by the arrival of a new justice. It gives new succor to everyone opposing public-health measures on “I do what I want” grounds and that’s *really* dangerous.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
