Four Supreme Court justices are fine with transmitting coronavirus in the name of Jesus
The court once again decided in a 5-4 split that a church cannot flout Covid-19 restrictions
Welcome to The Signorile Report, where you’ll read hard-hitting political commentary and exposés; ,find interviews with newsmakers; hear me “engage” with right-wingers who call my radio program; and connect with like-minded, passionate people everywhere committed to fighting for equality and helping each other out.
Late on Friday, the Supreme Court denied review of a lower court ruling that rejected a Nevada church’s challenge to coronavirus restrictions, concluding the church isn’t being discriminated against when it’s not treated equally to a Las Vegas casino.
The denial to review the case was a 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts, once again, joining the court’s liberals. This was the second time the court ruled on this issue; a California Pentecostal church had claimed its rights were violated by coronavirus restrictions, and in late May Justice Roberts joined the four liberals, rejecting the church’s arguments.
Roberts wrote a concurring opinion with the majority stating that the church was being treated no differently than any other public establishment that was shut down due to Governor Gavin Newsom’s orders.
This time the Nevada church argued it was being treated differently because churches are kept to a 50-person limit while casinos are being kept to a 50 percent capacity. The church wanted to seat 90 people. The majority issued no opinion, but the minority went bonkers, raising holy hell, and issued no less than three dissents — one from Samuel Alito, one from Neal Gorsuch and one from Brett Kavanaugh.
“A public health emergency does not give governors and other public officials carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists,” Alito thundered. Gorsuch went with: “[T]here is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.”
But in fact, Nevada treated churches just as it treated other venues in which larger numbers of people congregate and where social distancing is impractical: Movie theaters, concert halls, sporting arenas, live entertainment halls and other venues. The casinos were treated as other businesses in which strict adherence — in-use slot machines separated far apart, for example — is more easily enforceable.
Frankly, I don’t think the casinos or any businesses should be open in a state that is seeing a surge in coronavirus cases and which opened too early.
But as the federal district judge declared when he ruled against the church, the discretion should be given to state health officials. He quoted from Roberts’ opinion from the earlier California case: “Whether a church is more like a casino or more like a concert or lecture hall for purposes of assessing risk of Covid-19 transmission is precisely the sort of ‘dynamic and fact-intensive’ decision-making ‘subject to reasonable disagreement’ that the court should refrain from engaging in.”
This is one of those cases that, while a minor blip in all the news happening right now, underscores just how forceful the “religious liberty” adherents on the Supreme Court are. It’s a reminder about cases like several recent ones — allowing employers wide latitude to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs, which ultimately includes against LGBTQ people and women — and many cases coming up to the court.
Justice Roberts is clearly the swing vote in these religious liberty cases but, the churches and coronavirus aside, he’s with the conservatives on this issue more than he’s with the liberals, especially when it has long-lasting effects.