#BREAKING: Huge religious freedom victory tonight at the Supreme Court--stopping NY Gov Cuomo’s discriminatory #COVID19 worship restrictions against @BECKETlaw’s Orthodox Jewish clients. Here’s a thread with key excerpts from the Court’s opinions. s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/… 1/
Biggest takeaway: The Court resoundingly rejects blind deference to COVID-related restrictions on worship. Instead, all governments must recognize the Constitution still controls during a pandemic: 2/
The core holding of the majority is that our Orthodox Jewish clients “clearly established their entitlement to relief” by showing they are “likely to prevail” under the First Amendment: 3/
First, the Court ruled that NY’s restrictions are NOT neutral toward religion. And it wasn’t just Cuomo’s hostile comments toward Orthodox Jews. It was that many kinds of businesses were treated as “essential,” but worship was not: 4/
Next, the Court said NY’s law was needlessly harsh--there was “no evidence” that the synagogues had contributed to COVID spread, and NY could have tied attendance to the size of the building rather than imposing a hard cap: 5/
The Court also emphasized that even temporary restrictions on religious worship are an “irreparable harm,” and watching services online is not a substitute: 6/
New York had tried to escape the Court’s review by relaxing its restrictions at the last minute. But the Court said that changed nothing, because NY could reimpose the restrictions any time: 7/
Justice Gorsuch concurred, emphasizing the importance of the First Amendment in a time of crisis. Here is his closing line: 8/
Justice Kavanaugh also concurred, emphasizing that New York failed to justify its policy of treating houses of worship worse than secular businesses: 9/
Chief Justice Roberts dissented, but on very narrow, procedural grounds. In fact, he AGREED that NY’s regulations “may well...violate the Free Exercise Clause,” suggesting there are at least six votes (maybe more) to strike down such restrictions: 10/
However, the Chief said that because NY had backed down at the last minute, he saw no need to issue an injunction. If NY reinstated its restrictions, the synagogues “can return to this Court”: 11/
Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor also dissented. But they didn’t reject the synagogue’s claims on the merits. They agreed NY’s restrictions were “severe,” and the merits were “far from clear”; instead, they focused on NY’s last-minute retreat: 12/
Bottom line: This is a HUGE win for religious freedom. All governments are now on notice that they won’t get a free pass when they treat worship worse than secular businesses. Neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court will sleep through the pandemic. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Great argument in Fulton today! #SCOTUS looks poised to protect foster families and their Catholic foster care ministry. Main question is how broad the vote will be (8-1, 9-0?) and how broad the reasoning (is Smith in play?). Key takeaways: (thread)
The Justices broadly agreed that CSS has done vital work for over 200 years, and the City had no need to go after them. No same-sex couple has ever been turned away, yet city officials manufactured this dispute by shutting down CSS. 2/
Kavanaugh called the City’s position “absolutist and extreme,” noting that Philadelphia “created this clash,” even though “no same-sex couple has ever come to Catholic Social Services for participation in this program.” 3/
Great news! Two Texas brothers just defeated one of the dumbest attacks on #ReligiousFreedom you will find: Their school banned them from all sports and clubs unless they cut sacred braids they’ve kept as a religious vow since birth. bit.ly/2VzqJHB 1/
In Cesar’s infancy, his parents made a religious vow never to cut a lock of his hair if he was healed from meningitis. He was healed, and he and his brother have kept the vow ever since. This kind of “promesa” has deep roots among Mexican Catholics. 2/
From K-6th grade, the Mathis TX school district let the boys keep their hair without any problems. But in 7th grade (2017) the district barred them from all interscholastic competition. Cesar was banned from football; Diego was taken off the Science Team. 3/
Key takeaways from the Little Sisters argument @ #SCOTUS today: 1. It was clear the gov’t has many ways to give out contraception. It doesn’t need to conscript nuns. So #ReligiousFreedom protects the Sisters.
2. The states haven’t identified a SINGLE woman ever denied coverage due to a religious exemption. As the Obama Admin admitted, they get coverage on family plans, on the exchange, or other gov’t programs. Zero harm.
3. The states' argument was exposed as startlingly broad. It not only attacked the exemption for the Sisters. It said the gov’t even lacked authority to exempt CHURCHES. Alito jumped on this; no Justice seemed to buy it.
@cityofpensacola The cross was erected by Pensacola citizens in 1941, just months before the US entered WWII. It has long been a gathering place for community events and it is a valued part of the city’s history and culture: becketlaw.org/case/kondratye… 2/
@cityofpensacola In 2016, an atheist group sued to remove the cross, saying it was offensive. (One plaintiff used the cross for his “Satanic rituals.” Another was recently sentenced to 15 days in prison for throwing a drink on a U.S. Congressman: pnj.com/story/news/201…) 3/
#BREAKING: A federal court has thrown out criminal convictions of four volunteers who left food and water in the desert for migrants at risk of death. The court said prosecuting them violated #RFRA--a major victory for #ReligiousFreedom! 1/ s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/…
Fueled by faith, these volunteers traveled to the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, where migrant deaths are common, placing food & water along foot trails to prevent future deaths. 32 sets of human remains were recovered from this area in 2017 alone. 2/ credit: Google
Proving no good deed goes unpunished, the government criminally prosecuted the volunteers for entering the refuge & “abandoning property” (i.e., food & water) without a permit (even though no permit would allow them to leave food or water for migrants anyways). #Kafkaesque 3/
This is a bizarre case of progressives siding with the #Trump Administration and throwing Muslims and their civil rights under the bus--even when the supposed “benefit” for LGBT folks is nonexistent.
It's also wrong about who RFRA protects. Our empirical study of religious freedom cases shows that the groups getting the most benefit are non-Christian minorities, not Christians. Bleating "Hobby Lobby" doesn’t change that: 2/ papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Most obviously, on the specific RFRA issue #SCOTUS is reviewing ($ damages against federal officials), there have been 8 lower-court cases:
- 7 for Muslims
- 1 for a Hebrew-Israelite
- All but 1 were prisoners
- ZERO were Christians.