22 ms·
Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]
- compsciphd 6y agoTo paraphrase a well known orthodox rabbi in the US who wrote a long letter on the topic where he rules that one should wait where he ends: "we can to wait on returning to synagogue attendence, but we can't bring back a life".
- generalpass 6y agoDoes he comment on motorcycle riding? I know two people who died riding motorcycles. Can't bring them back, either. Maybe motorcycle riding should be banned?
- dvt 6y agoI lean libertarian, but there's cases where paternalistic laws make sense. For example, w.r.t. motorcycle riding, helmets are required. COVID-19 is a special case where paternalistic laws (albeit technically these orders aren't laws) seem proportional. A reduction in church capacity doesn't really seem like government overreach in the middle of a pandemic; especially because buildings already have (fire-department imposed) capacity limits.
- mythrwy 6y agoHelmets aren't required in all US states (not sure why people don't wear them anyway, but some people don't).
- dvt 6y ago> which seems strange but I guess ones life is their own business It's not strange at all. America is a federation of states which get to tax you, and get to pass their own laws. Your Mayor and Governor have much more impact in your day-to-day life than the President.
- mythrwy 6y agoRight, sorry, comment edited while you were responding. It just seems to strange to me they wouldn't be required in every state because it's such a severe safety hazard not to wear them.
- dmckeon 6y agoBecause in the US, states get to make some rules, and the federal government gets to make some other rules, and each is protective of their rights and prerogatives as enumerated in the US constitution, as amended. Look into amendments 9, 10, 13, & 14 for more. When the US federal government has wanted to enforce things like a nation-wide speed limit, or vehicle safety requirements, they have had to threaten to withhold highway funding to get states to go along by passing state-by-state laws. In theory, the same could be done with helmet laws, but enough political energy has not materialized for that to happen. This pattern will have implications for full-self-driving vehicles.
- mythrwy 6y agoYes thanks, I'm aware of how the federal system works. Really in the weeds by now, but it just seems strange to me that each state has not decided, on it's own (as per the structure of our federal and state system of governance), to make helmets mandatory.
- failrate 6y agoMotor cycle riding is not particularly contagious. Additionally, safety rules are in place to make Motor cycle riding as safe as possible for the rider and anyone with whom they interact.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- flyingcroissant 6y agoIt is completely reasonable to take precautions to avoid spreading a virus, just like you should wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle to protect yourself in the event that you crash.
- generalpass 6y ago> It is completely reasonable to take precautions to avoid spreading a virus, just like you should wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle to protect yourself in the event that you crash. They were both wearing helmets.
- flyingcroissant 6y agoI did not say that wearing a helmet guaranteed that no motorcycle rider would ever be injured.
- jrockway 6y agoI think the risk of motorcycle riding is mostly borne by the rider. If you think the reward outweighs the risk, you are welcome to ride. If you think it's too risky, you can decide to not ride. You have a great deal of control over your destiny. (There are many other risks, including risks to others, but we're ignoring those for this comment.) The calculus of a pandemic is different. Your choices affect others, potentially exponentially. You can decide you're in a low risk group, and so you don't care if you get infected. So you do get infected, and like your risk analysis determined, are fine. But you also infected 3 more people thinking the same thing. They each infect more people. One of those people several "generations" away from you then receives an emergency phone call from the nursing home, and rush to go see grandma. They infect several people in the nursing home, and now people that didn't want to take the risk of getting COVID-19 so you could do something you wanted to get COVID-19 and die. When dealing with exponential growth, your small choices can explode into large consequences. People don't do well with cause and effect that they are strongly removed from, and that's what we're seeing with calls to reopen. The negative effects of their behavior will never affect them, so their thought is to ignore it. People in charge of public health have to balance these externalities, and that's what they're trying to do. I am not saying that they made the right decision, but it still seems prudent to me to avoid unnecessary activities if it means you may save someone else's life. We did achieve some important goals in the 3 months that we've been shut down so far. We have better tests. We have better contact tracing. We have more PPE. We have taught people to socially distance. So we are certainly making progress towards being able to live more freely without increasing the risk to the most vulnerable. But we are not in the clear yet.
- tehwebguy 6y agoI thought this was the motorcycles-only synagogue too but turns out it’s just a regular one.
- root_axis 6y agoRiding a motorcycle is not at all similar to the spread of a highly contagious virus. Further, the style of argument where one sarcastically suggests banning a completely unrelated source of death with respect to a different topic is not conducive to productive discourse.
- Ididntdothis 6y agoIt would be nice if churches were a moderating voice but they often do the opposite.
- 082349872349872 6y agoFrom what I saw of Italy, the Pope was perfectly cool with waiting to congregate.
- dang 6y agoPlease don't step into religious flamewar on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- js2 6y agoJudaism is fundamentally a religion of laws, but virtually any of those laws may be broken in order to save a life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh
- einpoklum 6y agoNot "virtually any". Most can, some can't. The link lists several exceptions; of particular note is various forms of disrespecting Jehova.
- jeffdavis 6y agoI think the order was reasonable but let's remember that something lies between being forced to do something and being forced not to do something. What lies between is freedom, and it's a much larger space than the two extremes combined. The Rabbi might use his freedom to leave his synagogue open, close it until we defeat coronavirus, or close it until defeat all transmissible contagious disease.
- rantwasp 6y agoprobably this will rub some people the wrong way but, it amazes me how people put fiction before their well being.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dang 6y agoNo religious flamewar on HN, please.
- disposekinetics 6y agoThis case is harder than most because this is so communicable.
- billme 6y agoPDF of related ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf
- dvt 6y agoThank you. Maybe this should be the top level link? Unencumbered by the WaPo's editorializing and paywall.
- billme 6y agoSounds fine to me, mod (aka dang) would need to edit the URL and decide on the title too.
- dang 6y agoOk, we'll switch to that from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-considers-churches-demands-that-states-lift-pandemic-restrictions/2020/05/29/af07b918-a1b2-11ea-81bb-c2f70f01034b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-c.... I think the title is probably worth keeping.
- marcoperaza 6y agoIt is really going to be a farce when the same jurisdictions that so zealously enforced the lockdown against churches, the same governors that threatened and said vitriolic things about small anti-lockdown protests, now refuse to enforce those same rules against the people organizing and involved in these mass protests.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIt will be, but that’s not super relevant to this case. California didn’t enforce restrictions with any particular zeal and Newsom didn’t get mad about the lockdown protests.
- irrational 6y agoI’m religious and attend(ed) church weekly. I think this is great news. These idiots who are still trying to gather for church are so incredibly selfish.
- steve_g 6y agoI don't think it's fair to say that people who make a different assessment of risks and/or have different risk tolerance than you are "incredibly selfish". Lockdown, social distancing, mask-wearing, and other related changes in behavior are all about trade-offs in the face of uncertainty. Maybe you're right - but maybe you're wrong.
- tomnipotent 6y ago> different assessment of risks and/or have different risk tolerance I could care less about their personal assessment of risk, what I care about is that they go on to put other people at risk through these shenanigans. Someone willing to go to a crowded church during a pandemic intersects highly with people willing to go into other public spaces during a pandemic. I don't want to be put at risk because of their stupidity. They're not just making decisions that effect themselves.
- irrational 6y agoSomeone could go to a church meeting in one state and get the virus and then give it to someone else who gives it to someone else who gives it to me. x1000. That is selfish. They aren’t giving a single thought for the potential ramifications of their actions on people they’ve never met. Acting in such a way that potentially many people could die, when all you would have had to do was stay home, is the very definition of selfishness.
- totony 6y agoI think you are projecting your opinion. >all you would have had to do was stay home, is the very definition of selfishness. Staying at home for extended periods is not the easy thing people seem to project. Social gathering are very important to a lot of people. Religious gathering are the same. Telling people that there is no "risk analysis" here is both dishonest and dangerous.
- dvt 6y agoJust to be clear, as it seems not many people actually read the ruling, this is not an injunction on gatherings, but a ruling on the restrictions imposed (e.g. only 25% capacity, maximum of 100, etc.).
- gnicholas 6y agoThe rules that were challenged were the 25% capacity and no more than 100 people rules that newsom issued recently, after public outcry that the original rules (no church until phase 3) were inappropriate. The church in question seems to have focused on the 25% capacity portion of the new rules.
- fmajid 6y agoHow are those rules different from the Fire Marshall rules on maximum occupancy?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- joshuamorton 6y agoThe church's claim is that since other businesses, such as grocery stores, don't have occupancy limits[0], that enforcing occupancy limits on churches is discriminatory. The state argues that churches aren't like grocery stores, but like concert halls or theaters, which remain closed and will likely have similar occupancy caps when. The state also goes a bit further and notes that churches include singing, speech, and audience participation that isn't common in other places like grocery stores and theaters, which increase the dangers of spreading respiratory droplets. The majority essentially agreed that Churches are more like concerts than grocery stores, and that treating them similarly is reasonable in an emergency situation. The minority disagreed. [0]: I'm unclear on this, the grocery stores I go to do have 1-in-1-out policies and capacity caps. Lines go out the door and are socially distanced.
- gnicholas 6y agoThe fire marshal rules take into account the size of each building and the number of exits. Newsom’s rules subject small churches and large churches to the same 100-person cap, regardless of building size.
- bradleyjg 6y agoThe only thing that should be surprising about this ruling is the dissent. They can’t cite any applicable case law because there isn’t any. Up until now the Court has always treated the states’ (note states and not federal) police power in a pandemic to be near plenary. This is in line with English common law that developed under the shadow of the repeated waves of Bubonic Plague. Maybe that should change in light of the dramatically changed jurisprudence in so many other areas starting with the New Deal Court, but not in an application for an emergency stay.
- gizmo686 6y agoI too am dissapointed that this ruling was not unanimous, but the majority opinion is not much better. Both opinions seem to agree on the law generally, in that restrictions on places of worship must be no more onerous than restrictions on "comparable" secular activities. The dispute is what qualifies as comporable. The majority feels that services are comparable to "theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended pe- riods of time", and not "grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods." The dissent considers comparable activities to include: "factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries. " Neither side cites caselaw for there determination on this crucial fact.
- wbl 6y agoBecause these are facts not law! As Alito points out he isn't a doctor and he isn't going to second guess them in the middle of a plague.
- kmonsen 6y agoDidn’t he second guess doctors though? There were doctors writing the order but he said it should be overruled. Sorry if I’m misunderstanding, honestly want to understand here. Edit: I have tried to find what Alito thinks but can’t find any information. He voted to fully reopen churches but did not join the dissenting opinion or wrote his own so I don’t really know what his opinion is.
- gumby 6y agoTwo thoughts on apolitical, pragmatic grounds: This is a good ruling regardless of the importance of religious beliefs one might have. Churches are still subject to baseline rules like building codes, food safety (if they have a kitchen), have to pay their phone bill or else lose phone services,and the like. This represents an appropriate segregation of responsibility and allows parishioners to participate without having to consider externalities. I also am interested by the prevalence of 5-4 rulings, which are typically taken to imply a highly polarized court (and thus leads to some consternation when the voting is “strange”). Consider the opposite: perhaps all the justices want people to be safe: when they know that five will vote in that way, the other four can safely issue “position papers”. This latter point could be very important to the survival (credibility) of the court. The justices, though they don’t face elections, sometimes describe themselves as politicians: if people consider the court illegitimate or irrelevant then their rulings won’t be observed. So by signalling that every position is considered they help rope in those disappointed by the result.
- LudwigNagasena 6y agoThe ruling wasn’t about whether churches should abide by restrictions. And it is ridiculous to frame it that way. A case like this probably would never make it to the Supreme Court. The question was whether it is discriminatory to open some non-essential businesses but keep churches closed.
- aspenmayer 6y agoIt’s arguable that churches conduct essentially business per se, but they do provide a venue to conduct Constitutionally-protected activity.
- gumby 6y agoThey take in revenues and provide services — is that not the very definition of a business? A food bank does the same and is a business.
- 6y ago
- kmonsen 6y agoThe key part of the dissent is what is a comparable “business” to a church service. I think it is sports arrangement, or perhaps political arrangement, and the Supreme Court justices believe It is a supermarket and manufacturing. I’m not sure how we could find common ground or understand each other. I do believe the governor could have made the case better by stating restrictions (6 feet personal space, no sharing drinking cups, perhaps no choir in enclosed spaces?) instead of blanket numbers like max 100 people in a service regardless of church size which seems a bit arbitrary.
- dehrmann 6y agoConsidering religion is protected by the First Amendment, I'm fine with erring on the side of importance. The other nuance here is that while churches might be free to open, they're also free to stay closed out of caution, and individuals are free to not go.
- kmonsen 6y agoSure, but everyone (at least me and the 8 people on the Supreme Court) believes the governor is allowed to impose some restrictions in a pandemic. He is just not allowed to have harsher restrictions on churches then comparable activities which seems reasonable even to me as an atheist.
- fastball 6y agoThe dissent explicitly lists: > "factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries. " I think saying religion is equivalent to sports is pretty strange. People clearly place way more importance overall on religion than they do on sports, even in a country that's pretty crazy about sport. I would definitely argue that church is more important than pretty much everything in the latter half of the dissent's list.
- joshuamorton 6y agoThe question isn't one of importance, but of the danger to individuals from partaking in the activity. Yes, speaking constitutionally, shopping malls are less important than churches. But that doesn't matter if a church service is a religious concerts and concerts (religious or secular) aren't allowed.
- neonate 6y agohttps://archive.md/KTALl https://archive.md/KTALl
- jeffdavis 6y agoThe ruling has not been issued. This is about an injunction before the ruling.
- jeffdavis 6y agoThe difference between respecting a right and not can be seen by how much restraint goes into crafting the law. The details can get murky, but often the spirit is plain to see: was a good faith effort made to specialize the law to the problem being solved with minimal interference on any rights? Here, the California order doesn't ban going to church, it places additional building capacity and total attendance limits. There are complications though -- the longer these emergency orders drag on, the more skeptical we should be. They should be reviewed frequently, enforced moderately, and lifted promptly along with other similar activities. Surely it would turn into disrespecting the right if ballparks and concerts reopen first. Another complication is the idea of protests. While limiting the capacity of a church doesn't completely deny religious services; limiting protests strikes more at the heart of the first amendment and our ability to challenge decisions at all. The closing of gun stores is also problematic. It seems many gun stores in California have been ordered completely closed (not sure about state/county/city status), when other retail establishments remain open. A farmers market near my house is offering pony rides, the Starbucks and the Baskin Robbins are open, as are liquor stores and probably dispensaries. I think there is a real Constitutional issue there, and if it makes it to SCOTUS I would expect an injunction allowing gun stores to remain open.
- lowdose 6y agoAre you advocating gun stores have to remain open for the right of the people to own a gun? Why would anybody need a gun right now while their biggest life treat is a virus? Please lord more riots with more people having guns would be a plead from Anders Breivik. Does that guy have internet these days?
- AdrianB1 6y agoI am not a lawyer, just an IT guy trying to use logic: the rights in the US Constitution and amendments don't exist. They are not worth the paper they are printed on, because reasoning like this can kill each and every one with the death of a thousand cuts: "However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation" (source: Wikipedia article Free_Exercise_Clause). That reasoning tells that a law (the "criminal law") beats the Constitution by putting restrictions on a Constitutional right. First, it means the law should be considered unconstitutional by any decent logic, but SCOTUS decisions tells it is not. Enough cuts, rights are dead - free speech is the one that mostly exists, second amendment is heavily stripped in most states, fourth and fifth are regularly voided, probably a good lawyer can give examples for all. What I am telling is that if people consider some rights should be limited, the Constitution should be amended, not ignored. Two wrongs don't make a right, if something in the Constitution is wrong (the rights are too absolute) then raping the Constitution does not make it right. Please explain me where I am wrong in terms that use logic, especially for someone like me that is a complete foreigner (I live in Europe) and not familiar with these apparent wrongdoings. I am not saying anything in support or against this decision, I am saying this decision does not make sense in the context of the US Constitution text.
- nsajko 6y agoConsider a hypothetical religion that has worship which consists of something criminal (i.e. adherents kill for their god or something). I don't know the legal justification, but their freedom of religion would surely be trumped by my right to life, if an adherent tried to murder me :)
- AdrianB1 6y agoYou completely failed to understand my comment: if the Constitutional freedom of religion is too broad why do you accept the Constitution to be ignored with such decisions instead of fixing the problem, the Constitutional text? In your example it is clear the problem is the Constitution text being too broad/generic. SCOTUS is not there to rewrite or cut the text, people voting can do that.
- megavolcano 6y agoCongress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The Founding Fathers would weep of what has become of America.
- maxton 6y agoCongress has not made any law prohibiting the exercise of religion.
- kmonsen 6y agoThis is way more nuanced then your argument and all 9 Supreme Court justices would agree to this. For example fire hazard laws apply to churches even though it would seem to be in violation of your quote. Say you have to argue how this is related to relevant law, and why the church would be irreparably harmed by waiting until the case comes up later presumably this year.
- ofcoursetheydo9 6y agoNot a shock. Paraphrasing Scalia who wrote years ago, the context was about the 2nd, but his point was there are no absolute rights. In this case he said that the 2nd (and clarified he meant all rights) is not a license to carry whatever weapon wherever you want for whatever purpose. That the point of the amendment was contextualized and needs to retain that context. Religious practice doesn’t HAVE to take place in a temple. It’s reasonable enough to say that at home or safe group sizes during pandemic create less of a burden on the religious than the spread of a pandemic does for everyone. I understand that that’s not how it was decided. But it goes to show that they don’t just think in black and white. Kavanaugh is an ignoramus though.
- yters 6y agoarent the riots and protest much greater risk of spreading than a church service? why aren't police breaking them up?