Supreme Court lifts restrictions on California religious services

The Supreme Court ruled Friday night that California could not enforce some of its restrictions on religious services, partially lifting the limits put in place during the coronavirus pandemic.

In one Decision 6-3, judges ruled that the state could not ban indoor worship, but could cap indoor services at 25% of capacity. The court also failed to prevent the state from enforcing the ban on indoor singing and singing.

The court ruled in two cases brought against the state by churches – one by South Bay United Pentecostal Church and another by Harvest Rock Church – on restrictions imposed by the state.

California had decided to ban indoor worship services and other indoor activities such as meals and movie screenings in areas designated as “Level 1” – which covers most of the state. – due to the high number of coronaviruses.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that federal courts owe “great deference to politically responsible officials with respect to public health restrictions”, but added that deference “has its restrictions.”

Roberts also explained that the way the state decided that “the maximum number of adherents who can worship safely in the most cavernous cathedral is zero – does not seem to reflect expertise or discretion, but rather insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake. ”

Justice Amy Coney BarrettAmy Coney BarrettDOJ Drops Discrimination Case Against Yale University Graham Denies Merrick Garland Confirmation Hearing Request Feb 8 Durbin to Graham: ‘Regrettable’ No Hearing So Far for Garland MORE, the new conservative justice of the Court, wrote for itself and for Justice Brett KavanaughBrett Michael Kavanaugh: Canceling Trump Will Take More Than Executive Orders LIVE INAUGURATION COVER: Biden Signs Executive Orders; Press secretary holds first Harris briefing to step down from Senate seat on Monday READ MORE, that she did not know if the ban applied to everyone, or if “favors certain sectors”.

“Of course, if a backing vocalist can sing in a Hollywood studio but not in her church, California regulations cannot be considered neutral,” Barrett wrote. “But the toll is uncertain, and the decisions below unfortunately shed little light on the matter.”

The judges Elena KaganElena Kagan Democrats weigh in on lower court expansion after Trump blitz Supreme Court-cleared Christie’s ex-aide in ‘Bridgegate’ scandal running for local office LIVE INAUGURATION COVER: Biden sign decrees; the press officer holds his first briefing READ MORE, Stephen breyerStephen BreyerDemocrats weigh in on expansion of lower courts after Trump blitz LIVE INAUGURATION COVER: Biden signs executive orders; Press attaché holds first briefing Sotomayor opposes latest federal execution, calling it ‘justice on the fly’ READ MORE and Sonia sotomayorSonia SotomayorCriminalize threats to civil servants Democrats weigh in on expansion of lower courts after Trump blitz Overnight Defense: Army details new standards of hairstyle and care | DC National Guard Chief Says Pentagon Restricted Authority Before Riot | Colorado calls on Biden not to move Space Command MORE all disagreed with opinion. Kagan wrote that the court’s decision “defies our jurisprudence, exceeds our judicial role, and threatens to worsen the pandemic” by making a “special exception” for worship services.

“I sincerely hope that the court’s intervention will not worsen the COVID crisis in the country,” Kagan wrote. “But if this decision causes suffering, we will not pay.”

The decision comes a few months after the High Court ruled 5-4 ban New York from applying limits on the number of people who can attend services due to the coronavirus pandemic.