US Supreme Court Rejects Church’s Plea Against COVID-19 Restrictions On Religious Places

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

The Supreme Court of United States rejected the plea to remove restrictions on religious places. South Bay Pentecostal Church moved an application of injunction against the Covid-19 restrictions. The decision was a result of a close divide of 5:4 among the judges. 

Brief Background 

In response to the COVID-19 crisis, California has imposed restrictions on the number of attendance in religious places. The restriction is 25% of the building capacity or 100 people, whichever is lower. This 25% cap has not been sanctioned on any other businesses like hotels, salons, supermarkets, etc.

The churches are placed under the category of large gatherings. South Bay church applied for an injunction against this restriction order. The lower courts in California have turned down the churches pleas. Several other churches from Chicago and Illinois applied for injunction but were rejected. 

Court’s Observation 

The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects the religious practices from government regulations. But the extreme situation which has put public health on line has had the government to take strict actions. The church has 20-30 people gathering and would qualify under large gatherings.

There are similar or severe restrictions placed on other secular gatherings such as concerts, theaters, lectures, etc. This is for gatherings in large groups in close proximity for extended period of time. The Court observed that the present restrictions by the California State are well within the bounds of the free exercise clause. The Court cited Marshall v United States which supports the broad reach by government to problems with medical uncertainty. With the COVID-19 cases on a constant rise, restrictions aiming social distancing are essential. The Court pointed to the compelling interests of public health that the state has for these restrictions.

Dissent  

The dissent made an interesting point by comparing the church to other secular businesses. The main argument was to allow the church to run without restrictions same as other businesses. The judges asserted that allowing businesses to work free while posting restrictions on the church would not serve right. The church will adhere to all the norms and hygienic practices like the other businesses. Judge Kavanaugh added that the restrictions would burden the religious freedom. The other dissenting judges expressed that this is violation of the First Amendment. These restrictions are mere discrimination against religious activities. 

Held

The Court held that the decision on lifting of restrictions is in fact intensive. The Constitution entrusts the duty to protect the health of the people on the state. The state must take all necessary actions in its constitutional power to reach this goal. The Court finally rejected the application of injunction.

Conclusion 

This revealed the importance of balance between religious liberty and the public health. The thin line in balancing these has never been more important. All businesses, stores and churches will have to take all precautions. The dissenting Judges questioned, assuming all precautions are taken, how someone can walk safely down a grocery store aisle but not a pew. This question will be answered only when the restrictions lead to flattening of the curve.


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

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -