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

[Peter1469]

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.

The OP is about injunctive relief. They never got to strict scrutiny.

[DGUtley]

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

I cannot speak on this without reading the actual decision and possibly the briefs. I don’t know enough so I abstain - at this time.

[DGUtley]

Though, yes, stare decisis is very important. I just don’t know if it is or was an issue here. I hope to find the briefs on Westlaw tomorrow- if Downtown Akron isn’t locked down.