5 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
Because 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 ago
  Didn’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.
- throwlaplace 6y ago
  I agree with your and there's a joke somewhere in here but I can't quite compose it. Something like: One SCJ says to another "I can't decide where to go this Sunday for brunch". Second SCJ responds "you should check to see if there's relevant case law on who makes the best mamosas". First SCJ checks LexisNexus and comes back empty handed and says to the first "guess I'll just go to the church instead".
- gizmo686 6y ago
  I do not see any statement from Alito, but he voted with the dissent. The position of Roberts (writing for the majority) is that: > Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary," Which is to say, even the majority acknlowdges that there are times where the courts should intervene. The question of what a "comparable" secular activity is is very much a legal one.
  - wbl 6y ago
    Oh good catch!
kmonsen 6y ago
Yes, I mentioned this elsewhere as well. They key point is what is a comparable activity. That probably needs to go into law, or can this be used as a precedent later?
wnoise 6y ago
Well, yes, because the right answer is so obvious they felt no need to make citations. Usually they "take judicial notice"; but for some obvious things even invoking those words is skipped, because the fact doesn't even rise to the level of scrutiny.
pnw_hazor 6y ago
The court is letting states decide that religious practice is non-essential or less essential as compared to some selected commercial activities. I don't think a state or the US should be allowed to make that determination. Interfering with religious practice can cause irreparable harm to persons. It is up to the person and the religion. This is not really something the state can reason about.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  > Interfering with religious practice can cause irreparable harm to persons. It is up to the person and the religion. Growing up in a Christian home I'd say allowing religious services to continue is more likely to cause harm to people. Still, it sounds like you think physical religious gatherings are some kind of human right.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    Well it most certainly is a human right. Religious or otherwise. That was actually never up for debate. The question is that right can only be temporarily, narrowly, and non-discriminately suspended under extraordinary circumstances, and 5-4 agreed that is in fact what has been done.
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      The problem is that the government is saying that grocery shopping is more important than going to church. For me personally, grocery shopping is undeniably more important since I am not religious. But for others being denied access to religious services or practice may be a grave sin that is worse than having to wait in longer lines at the grocery store. On that note, I am going to go shopping.
      - kmonsen 6y ago
        They are still allowed religious service and practice, but in a controlled way that will not spread the virus.
toast0 6y ago
How much caselaw would there be on comparison of churches to other venues where people gather? What sort of disputes in the past would have revolved around the similarities or differences? Perhaps disputes about zoning or occupancy permits? You don't see a whole lot of that kind of dispute rising through the courts to make a lot of case law.
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  Zoning is a big area where churches often are found to have more freedom. The basic argument is that putting arbitrary restrictions on a church is a violation of the 1st Amd. There is nuance, such as, if the state can prove to a court that a zoning restriction is necessary. For example, a rule against high occupancy buildings in a flood plain, or the like, may be okay. While a rule against off street parking in a residential neighborhood, or the like, may not be enforced against churches. Generally, US governments get into trouble if they put restrictions on religious institutions that are not absolutely necessary.
pnw_hazor 6y ago
It would be interesting to see how this case would go with a fully developed case. Here, I appreciate that the SCOTUS is making a hasty and abbreviated ruling here on the emergency stay request. This makes sense practically in view of CA voluntarily reducing some of the earlier restrictions and given the fact that it seems that restrictions will be further reduced in the near future. Thus, there is no need for the SCOTUS to provide a fleshed out opinion absent a fully developed record and full briefing. This order is 6 pages, I imagine it would be 60 pages or more if it actually ripened into a real appeal.

wbl 6y ago

Because 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 ago
Didn’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.
throwlaplace 6y ago
I agree with your and there's a joke somewhere in here but I can't quite compose it. Something like: One SCJ says to another "I can't decide where to go this Sunday for brunch". Second SCJ responds "you should check to see if there's relevant case law on who makes the best mamosas". First SCJ checks LexisNexus and comes back empty handed and says to the first "guess I'll just go to the church instead".
gizmo686 6y ago
I do not see any statement from Alito, but he voted with the dissent. The position of Roberts (writing for the majority) is that: > Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary," Which is to say, even the majority acknlowdges that there are times where the courts should intervene. The question of what a "comparable" secular activity is is very much a legal one.
- wbl 6y ago
  Oh good catch!

kmonsen 6y ago

Yes, I mentioned this elsewhere as well. They key point is what is a comparable activity. That probably needs to go into law, or can this be used as a precedent later?

wnoise 6y ago

Well, yes, because the right answer is so obvious they felt no need to make citations. Usually they "take judicial notice"; but for some obvious things even invoking those words is skipped, because the fact doesn't even rise to the level of scrutiny.

pnw_hazor 6y ago

The court is letting states decide that religious practice is non-essential or less essential as compared to some selected commercial activities. I don't think a state or the US should be allowed to make that determination. Interfering with religious practice can cause irreparable harm to persons. It is up to the person and the religion. This is not really something the state can reason about.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
> Interfering with religious practice can cause irreparable harm to persons. It is up to the person and the religion. Growing up in a Christian home I'd say allowing religious services to continue is more likely to cause harm to people. Still, it sounds like you think physical religious gatherings are some kind of human right.
- zaroth 6y ago
  Well it most certainly is a human right. Religious or otherwise. That was actually never up for debate. The question is that right can only be temporarily, narrowly, and non-discriminately suspended under extraordinary circumstances, and 5-4 agreed that is in fact what has been done.
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    The problem is that the government is saying that grocery shopping is more important than going to church. For me personally, grocery shopping is undeniably more important since I am not religious. But for others being denied access to religious services or practice may be a grave sin that is worse than having to wait in longer lines at the grocery store. On that note, I am going to go shopping.
    - kmonsen 6y ago
      They are still allowed religious service and practice, but in a controlled way that will not spread the virus.

toast0 6y ago

How much caselaw would there be on comparison of churches to other venues where people gather? What sort of disputes in the past would have revolved around the similarities or differences? Perhaps disputes about zoning or occupancy permits? You don't see a whole lot of that kind of dispute rising through the courts to make a lot of case law.

pnw_hazor 6y ago
Zoning is a big area where churches often are found to have more freedom. The basic argument is that putting arbitrary restrictions on a church is a violation of the 1st Amd. There is nuance, such as, if the state can prove to a court that a zoning restriction is necessary. For example, a rule against high occupancy buildings in a flood plain, or the like, may be okay. While a rule against off street parking in a residential neighborhood, or the like, may not be enforced against churches. Generally, US governments get into trouble if they put restrictions on religious institutions that are not absolutely necessary.

pnw_hazor 6y ago

It would be interesting to see how this case would go with a fully developed case. Here, I appreciate that the SCOTUS is making a hasty and abbreviated ruling here on the emergency stay request. This makes sense practically in view of CA voluntarily reducing some of the earlier restrictions and given the fact that it seems that restrictions will be further reduced in the near future. Thus, there is no need for the SCOTUS to provide a fleshed out opinion absent a fully developed record and full briefing. This order is 6 pages, I imagine it would be 60 pages or more if it actually ripened into a real appeal.