The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that California cannot impose some of its restrictions on religious services, partially lifting the limits set during the coronavirus pandemic.
On a Decision 6-3, the judges held that the state cannot ban indoor worship, but could limit internal services to 25% of capacity. The court also did not prevent the state from imposing a ban on singing and singing indoors.
The court ruled in two cases brought against the state by churches – one by South Bay United Pentecostal Church and one by Harvest Rock Church – about restrictions in the state.
California switched to worship services and other indoor activities, such as dinner and film screenings in areas designated as “Tier 1” – which covers most of the state – due to the high number of coronaviruses.
Chief Justice John Roberts I wrote that federal courts owe “significant deference to politically responsible officials in relation to public health restrictions”, but added that deference “has its restrictions”.
Roberts also explained that the way the state decided that “the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero – it seems to reflect not specialization or discretion, but rather insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Amy Coney BarrettDOJ gives up on discrimination against Yale University Graham rejects request for confirmation from Merrick Garland at the February 8 hearing for Durbin to Graham: ‘Regrettable’ no hearing so far for Garland MORE, the court’s newest conservative justice, wrote to her and the Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Brett Michael Kavanaugh Undoing Trump will take more than executive orders LIVE INAUGURATION COVERAGE: Biden signs executive orders; press secretary gives first briefing for Harris to resign Senate seat on Monday MORE, that she was unsure whether the ban was being applied to everyone or “favors certain sectors.”
“Of course, if a choir can sing in a Hollywood studio, but not in their church, California regulations cannot be seen as neutral,” wrote Barrett. “But the record is uncertain and the decisions below unfortunately shed little light on the matter.”
Judges Elena Kagan
Elena KaganDemocrats evaluate the expansion of the lower courts after Trump blitz Christie’s former assistant released by the Supreme Court in the ‘Bridgegate’ scandal running for a local office LIVE INAUGURATION COVERAGE: Biden signs executive orders; press secretary gives first briefing MORE, Stephen BreyerStephen BreyerDemocrats evaluate the expansion of the lower courts after Trump’s blitz LIVE INAUGURATION COVERAGE: Biden signs executive orders; press secretary gives Sotomayor dissidents’ first briefing on the latest federal execution, calling it ‘instant justice’ MORE and Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia SotomayorCriminalize threats to civil servants Democrats evaluate expansion of lower courts after Trump blitz Night defense: Army details new hair and appearance patterns | DC National Guard Chief Says Pentagon Restricted Its Authority Before Rioting | Colorado asks Biden not to move Space Command MORE everyone disagreed with the opinion. Kagan wrote that the court’s decision “defies our judgment, exceeds our judicial role and risks worsening the pandemic” by making a “special exception” for worship services.
“I fervently hope that the Court’s intervention will not worsen the country’s COVID crisis,” wrote Kagan. “But if this decision causes suffering, we will not pay.”
The decision comes a few months after the high court ruled 5-4 to prevent New York from imposing limits on how many people can attend services due to the coronavirus pandemic.