Le††uce Prey: SCOTUS rules California cannot prevent in-home religious gatherings

 In a 5-4 ruling, SCOTUS held that California cannot enforce a rule, which ‘for now limits both religious and non-religious gatherings in homes to no more than three households, ‘ including in-person religious meetings, prayer groups, and Bible studies. This the fifth time SCOTUS has ‘sided with religious adherents and against California’s COVID-19 restrictions.’ The usual conservatives ruled in favor of the religious groups except Chief Justice Roberts, who did not join the opposing opinion, but rather ‘noted simply that he would have left the lower court order intact.’

SCOTUS used the controversial ‘shadow docket,’ which refers to ‘rulings decided outside the court’s regular docket without oral argument. The public is able to see the court’s ultimate decision, but how the justices voted and much of the underlying reasoning remain a mystery. The mechanism is not new to the high court, but legal scholars have increasingly warned that the court’s reliance on the shadow docket is a point of high concern.’

“California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts, and indoor restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time,” the unsigned opinion said.

“The State cannot assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work.”

“California need not … treat at-home religious gatherings the same as hardware stores and hair salons,” the dissenting opinion said. “The law does not require that the State equally treat apples and watermelons.”

Politico:

In the past, SCOTUS usually did not rule on such matters; they left these types of decisions to local health departments and scientists. But since The Handmaiden was confirmed to the bench, more religious based suits testing states’ COVID-19 restriction have reached SCOTUS, who has ultimately ruled in favor of said religious organization or advocacy group.

This is NOT a religion discussion. As per NV guidelines, no scriptures and/or proselytizing.

About Ms. G 2919 Articles
Welcome back, America!