Knives are out for SCOTUS over church occupancy numbers decision
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has made her first major impact on the judicial landscape from the nation’s highest bench this week. In a reversal from decisions earlier this year when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was still living, the court ruled in a 5-4 decision to put an injunction on the enforcement of occupancy limits for houses of worship in New York. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberals in dissent from the majority opinion.
This means that Justice Barrett’s presence was the deciding factor in a critical decision about religious liberty and COVID-19 lockdowns that may forecast more trouble ahead in the courts for the strict limitations favored by some blue-state governors.
The regulations, the unsigned decision stated, “cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment. In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as ‘essential’ may admit as many people as they wish.” Essential businesses include, “acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities.”
Because of that, the restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny and the court granted the injunction due to the case’s high likelihood of success on the merits. This marks a change from cases earlier in the year when Justice Roberts joined the court’s four liberals including Justice Ginsburg in majority opinions reinforcing similar orders in other states.
Although New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo downplayed the decision’s overall importance, because the limits have since been phased out in the communities in question, the shift in the court’s views was not lost on him.
“You have a different court,” Cuomo told reporters Thursday. “And I think that was the statement that the court was making.”
Meanwhile, some Democratic operatives have gone further in their criticisms of the decision, suggesting that because of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s perceived hypocrisy in confirming Justice Barrett so close to the election, the court is not just “different” but in fact illegitimate.
Congressman Hakeem Jeffries from Brooklyn and Queens tweeted Friday morning that “Congress should not shelter in place with America confronted by an illegitimate Supreme Court.”
“The new illegitimate 5-4 SCOTUS majority overturning a policy to put more lives in danger,” tweeted Obama administration Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes.
These statements join a rising chorus of voices on the left, up to and including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, describing the Supreme Court in this way.
This tone is as at least as dangerous to our political system as President Trump’s calls that the 2020 election was in some way stolen from him. Perhaps more so, since many of those using it will continue to wield political power after January 20. To undermine the legitimate constitutional authority of the justice system for purely partisan reasons is an unhealthy precedent that should be rejected on both sides of the aisle.