Roman catholic diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew m. Cuomo, governor of New York
SCOTUS decision is a victory for 1st amendment rights to free exercise of religion.
20A87 Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (11/25/2020) (supremecourt.gov)
As with all of the rights enumerated there are no 'absolute ' rights. Yes it is an absolute right to believe .But there is not necessarily an absolute right to act. Certain religious practices have been outlawed. Human sacrifice comes immediately to mind. But so does the decision to outlaw polygamy . There are mandates to get vaccinated that conflict with religious beliefs . SCOTUS in the past has played the balancing ct with the idea that there may be compelling reasons for the state to over rule religious practice. I fall in with those who think that in most cases that the 1st amendment right to free exercise takes precedent . In this case ;and I live in an area where this case comes into play; the public health aspect could outweigh the religious freedom aspect . But in this case clearly the religious freedom argument ,and the disparate treatment argument won the
The majority opinion and the concurrence opinions by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are based on 1st amendment grounds .
Roberts and concurring dissents by Kagan ,Sotomayor and Breyer are based on the fact that il duce Cuomo had already lifted the severe restrictions .They therefore believe the case should not have been decided by SCOTUS since the point was moot . But Cuomo makes decrees on a whim . The real point is that he had severe restrictions on religious institutions that he did not impose on secular places . He designated places like Walmart as 'essential ' and waved his draconian restrictions on them ? Well why is not religious gathering essential ? Certainly a church or synagogue that can fit 500 -1000 congregants can comply with the covid restrictions that are imposed on grocery stores and restaurants .
The minority punted on the issue because they know the religious institutions were right .
