In a 5-4 per curiam decision, penned by Neil Gorsuch and joined by Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Alito, the US Supreme Court has enjoined the state of New York from enforcing the Governor’s severe restrictions on the applicants’ religious services.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox Jewish organization sued the Cuomo administration and the state of New York over the restrictions. Cuomo attempted to moot the suit by lifting the restrictions.
The per curiam opinion begins:
The applicants have clearly established their entitlement to relief pending appellate review. They have shown that their First Amendment claims are likely to prevail, that denying them relief would lead to irreparable injury, and that granting relief would not harm the public interest.
TThe applicants have made a strong showing that the challenged restrictions violate “the minimum requirement of neutrality” to religion.
[T]he regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment..
Terminal squish John Roberts voted with the liberal bloc, and wrote his own dissent. It reads in part:
II would not grant injunctive relief under the present circumstances. There is simply no need to do so. After the Diocese and Agudath Israel filed their applications, the Governor revised the designations of the affected areas. None of the houses of worship identified in the applications is now subject to any fixed numerical restrictions. At these locations, the applicants can hold services with up to 50% of capacity, which is at least as favorable as the relief they currently seek.
Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive. And it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause. It is not necessary, however, for us to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time. The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not. And it is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic..
I think we’re starting to see the Roberts legacy start to unravel. With ACB on the court, there is no need for Roberts vote. Perhaps I gave him too much credit, but previously I thought he voted with the liberal bloc to limit the damage done by writing the opinions himself. Now? He should just come out as a liberal.