U.S. Supreme Court Denies Injunction to Nevada Church’s Challenging COVID-19 Restrictions

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

The state of Nevada has 41,000 confirmed cases and 722 deaths. The Government placed these restrictions as measures against the further spread. The church in Nevada applied for an injunction against the restriction. The Supreme Court denied an emergency application for an injunction.

Background

Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley applied for an injunction. The application contended for their free exercise of religion. Directive 21 of the governor’s phase two reopening plan restricts the number of attendees. The churches in Nevada have a cap of 50 attendees. This is a part of the restrictions laid down in reaction to the spread of COVID -19. The suit was first bought in the Federal District Court. Then appealed to Ninth Circuit, both of whom denied the injunction.

Arguments of the Parties

The petitioners’ main contention was that places like casinos have a 50% bar on capacity. The religious places have a cap of 50 people irrespective of their capacity. The application accused the governor of Nevada for having different priorities. They claimed this violates their First Amendment rights. Violation of the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause.

The defence argued that there is a primary difference between commercial activities and religious activities. The restriction violation penalties are of different degrees. The Casinos come under strict regulations, unlike the churches.

The petitioners argued that certain constitutional freedoms could not curtail even in a crisis. The Government cannot use the excuse of the crisis to override equal treatment.

Explanation of the Clause

The Free Exercise Clause requires strict scrutiny over certain clauses. Especially the restrictions on religion that are not “neutral and of general applicability”. Neutrality, in essence, means non- discriminatory. The Free Speech Clause bars any content-based discrimination. There are constitutional red lines which are drawn. These red lines include religious, racial and content-based discrimination.

Court’s Opinion

The majority of the judges denied the application without opinion publication. The dissent judgments argued that the precedent of the Court bars even “subtle deviation from neutrality”. Justice Gorsuch noted that the priority of Caesar’s palace over Calvary Chapel is discrimination. Justice Kavanaugh agreed and added to Justice Alito’s dissent. They stated that the transmission rates in commercial venues aren’t any different than in churches. As long as the churches are following the safety measures, they should be allowed to exercise their freedom.

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court affirmed the ninth circuit. They also denied the injunction relief to the petitioners.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -