Supreme Court, in rare late-night ruling, says California may enforce certain restric

[DGUtley]

I'm not surprised.

I am incredibly surprised. They got this one wrong.

[Dr. Who]

I will post the decision when it is published. I want to see the strict scrutiny analysis (to include the dissent) before I offer an opinion on the outcome.

Here it is: The OP was updated to include the link.

OK, I remember now- this case is not on the merits so strict scrutiny does not come into play. It was a request for an injunction. So the legal standard for SCOTUS is whether the plaintiff's legal rights at issue are indisputably clear but injunctions are only used in the most critical and exigent circumstances. Here we have organic state power versus the First Amendment which will be judged on the merits with a strict scrutiny test. I have posted that three part test a couple of times in the last week so I won't bother doing it again here.

The dissent focuses on the disparate treatment of businesses / facilities in the relevant law. Some businesses are restricted more than churches, some less and some the same. The dissent says that since some of the places treated in a less restrictive manner than churches are comparable so far as "virus safety" goes, the injunction should be granted.

If that is indeed the case, I would side with the dissent.

The plaintiff's lawyers are dolts. They should have asked for a stay of enforcement of the lower court's order or at least ask for the injunction and in the alternative a stay. That is a lower standard, and they likely would have prevailed.

I would think that if SCOTUS were to consider abandoning stare decisis in these matters, they would also have to leave behind the contemporary doctrine that allows them to apply a strict scrutiny test and requisite compelling governmental interest in favor of a face value interpretation of the BOR. However, in their dissent, even Justices Kavanaugh, Thomas and Gorsuch suggest that strict scrutiny and compelling governmental interest remain the applicable standard:


"To justify its discriminatory treatment of religious worship services, California must show that its rules are “justified by a compelling governmental interest” and “narrowly tailored to advance that interest.” Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 531–532. California undoubtedly has a compelling interest in combating the spread of COVID–19 and protecting the health of its citizens."


They simply disagree that a 25% occupancy cap on religious services is consistent with the State's treatment of secular businesses.


"California undoubtedly has a compelling interest in combating the spread of COVID–19 and protecting the health of its citizens. But “restrictions inexplicably applied to one group and exempted from another do little to further these goals and do much to burden religious freedom.” Roberts v. Neace, 958 F. 3d 409, 414 (CA6 2020) (per curiam). What California needs is a compelling justification for distinguishing between (i) religious worship services and (ii) the litany of other secular businesses that are not subject to an occupancy cap.

California has not shown such a justification.""
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...f-73dfc1460000

[Dr. Who]

I am incredibly surprised. They got this one wrong.

Do you agree that even the conservative faction of the Court is disinclined to abandon stare decisis in these matters?

[Peter1469]

I would think that if SCOTUS were to consider abandoning stare decisis in these matters, they would also have to leave behind the contemporary doctrine that allows them to apply a strict scrutiny test and requisite compelling governmental interest in favor of a face value interpretation of the BOR. However, in their dissent, even Justices Kavanaugh, Thomas and Gorsuch suggest that strict scrutiny and compelling governmental interest remain the applicable standard:


"To justify its discriminatory treatment of religious worship services, California must show that its rules are “justified by a compelling governmental interest” and “narrowly tailored to advance that interest.” Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 531–532. California undoubtedly has a compelling interest in combating the spread of COVID–19 and protecting the health of its citizens."


They simply disagree that a 25% occupancy cap on religious services is consistent with the State's treatment of secular businesses.


"California undoubtedly has a compelling interest in combating the spread of COVID–19 and protecting the health of its citizens. But “restrictions inexplicably applied to one group and exempted from another do little to further these goals and do much to burden religious freedom.” Roberts v. Neace, 958 F. 3d 409, 414 (CA6 2020) (per curiam). What California needs is a compelling justification for distinguishing between (i) religious worship services and (ii) the litany of other secular businesses that are not subject to an occupancy cap.

California has not shown such a justification.""
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...f-73dfc1460000

I have said that on the merits strict scrutiny will apply. But STOUS doesn't have to abandon stare decisis to rule differently that they ruled in 1909. Strict scrutiny is applied to the facts of a given case.

[Peter1469]

Do you agree that even the conservative faction of the Court is disinclined to abandon stare decisis in these matters?

That has nothing to do with the OP.

[Chris]

What gets me abou this decision is Roberts states the religious restrictions are the same as business restrictions but the dissent said the opposite. They can't both be right.

[Chris]

Supreme court rejects California church appeal on coronavirus service limits

...Roberts wrote in a brief opinion that the restriction allowing churches to reopen at 25% of their capacity, with no more than 100 worshipers at a time, “appears consistent” with the first amendment.

Roberts said similar or more severe limits apply to concerts, movies and sporting events “where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time”.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in dissent that the restriction “discriminates against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses. Such discrimination violates the first amendment.”

Kavanaugh pointed to supermarkets, restaurants, hair salons, cannabis dispensaries and other businesses that are not subject to the same restrictions....

[Dr. Who]

That has nothing to do with the OP.

Insofar as it governs or at least influences the decisions made by successive courts and prior decisions were based on strict scrutiny, why wouldn't it? The decision at hand referenced those prior decisions in maintaining the state's right to have a compelling interest in the health and safety of the population that can preempt the 1A protection wrt religion so long as it doesn't subject religion or this case religious services to a different standard than is otherwise applicable to secular groups or businesses. In this decision, the majority found that the standard was consistent in its application, the minority found that it wasn't.

I don't see how the strict scrutiny test can be applied to arrive at a different conclusion regarding a state's compelling interest where the potential for transmission of contagious disease is at the core of that interest.


However, if your only interest in this case is whether or not the state was consistent in its application of a 25% cap, then I agree that stare decisis is irrelevant.

[carolina73]

John Roberts. Another George Bush disappointment.

[Chris]

John Roberts. Another George Bush disappointment.

Studies have been done that show justices tend to become more liberal over time, not all, but many.



Supreme Court Justices Get More Liberal As They Get Older