The Supreme Court has turned down a bid by two Chicago-area churches for relief from stay-at-home orders Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker issued as part of an effort to control the spread of coronavirus
Justices suggest dispute was moot; action is awaited on parallel California fight.
The justices suggested the dispute was moot after Pritzker and other officials moved Thursday toinstead of mandatory.Advertisement"The Illinois Department of Public Health issued new guidance on May 28. The denial is without prejudice to Applicants filing a new motion for appropriate relief if circumstances warrant," the court wrote in
Friday evening.The order appeared to be unanimous, as no justice publicly recorded any dissent.The Romanian churches — one in Chicago and one just outside the city — took their complaints to the Supreme Court after being cited by local officials for violations of the lockdown orders. Lower courts declined emergency relief, but their lawsuits claiming that the orders violated the Constitution's guarantees of freedom of religion remain pending.
Attorneys for the churches argued that their clients still urgently needed protection from an overbearing state government because there was no guarantee that the orders would not be reissued. However, the justices said the churches were free to come back if that transpired.
A similar battle over California's Covid-19-related limits on religious worship remains pending at the court. A San Diego-area Pentecostal churchis seeking emergency relieffrom Gov. Gavin Newsom's orders, which currently restrict religious services to 25% of a church's maximum authorized capacity and no more than 100 people.
The church has asked the high court to act in time to allow for more expansive services this Sunday, which is the holiday of Pentecost. Action on the request could come later Friday night. Typically, a majority of the justices would have to back the church's plea for the court to issue an emergency injunction.
While churches in various states have complained that the restrictions are excessive and unfairly put religion at a disadvantage to businesses like liquor stores, state officials have defended the measures by noting mass infections that have taken place at multiple churches across the U.S. and around the world.
Medical experts say the close contact of a typical church service, coupled with singing and loud talking, creates a major danger for the spread of droplets containing the virus. Read more: POLITICO »
My God. Are you really this dishonest? THEY SAID IT WAS MOOT. They denied it WITHOUT PREJUDICE. You're either really stupid or really dishonest. Maybe both. Hire someone who understands the law to write about SCOTUS.
Bolsonaro urges Brazil's Supreme Court to shelve 'fake news' probePresident Jair Bolsonaro slammed Brazil's Supreme Court on Thursday for investigating an alleged disinformation and intimidation campaign involving his supporters, as a political crisis mushroomed amid the country's accelerating COVID-19 outbreak. ....al diavolo! Bring back Lula!! BRING BACK LULA! Can this guy be any more harmful and discrimatory?
As churches reopen, Supreme Court faces balancing act between physical and spiritual healthChurches are the latest protesters against coronavirus restrictions. While 29 states don't prohibit religious gatherings, 21 impose restrictions. What was the need to open the Church spiritual health is necessary The constitution gives the people the right to worship what ever God they want but has nothing that says they can infect others with a virus. If churches are allowed to gather then who's going to be responsible for the infection of people that get sick and die.
Texas Supreme Court blocks vote-by-mail expansion to those lacking immunity to the coronavirusThe Texas Supreme Court on Wednesday blocked a push to expand vote-by-mail to registered voters in the state amid the pandemic, saying that a lack of immunity to the coronavirus does not count as a 'disability' for which a voter can apply for a mail-in ballot. Color me surprised. Texas AG Ken Paxton behind another twisted legal interpretation that jeopardizes the public writ large. These are not judges. They are politicians masquerading as judges. Some of them can't even physically attend court proceedings. They do so remotely, yet they want voters to die casting ballots.
Legal immunity for police misconduct, under attack from left and right, may get Supreme Court reviewThe brutal death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police has re-energized a national debate over misconduct by law enforcement officials that the Supreme Court may be poised to enter. Good, immunity for the police is obviously a horrible idea that encourages reckless behavior. Lazy ass Supreme court should've done something years ago.
Supreme Court weighs California's limits on church crowds during pandemicSupreme Court is set to rule in a case in which a San Diego-area church challenged Gov. Gavin Newsom's order limiting attendance because of the coronavirus.
Supreme Court rejects appeal from Louisiana inmate with coronavirus concernsThe Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a Louisiana inmate who argued that a state prison was not doing enough to protect him from catching Covid-19 Not rich enough. He must not have secrets on Trump or truckloads of money Ahh he must not be wealthy r didn't do a white collar crime.