The court is letting states decide that religious practice is non-essential or less essential as compared to some selected commercial activities.

I don't think a state or the US should be allowed to make that determination.

Interfering with religious practice can cause irreparable harm to persons. It is up to the person and the religion.

This is not really something the state can reason about.

> Interfering with religious practice can cause irreparable harm to persons. It is up to the person and the religion.

Growing up in a Christian home I'd say allowing religious services to continue is more likely to cause harm to people.

Still, it sounds like you think physical religious gatherings are some kind of human right.

Well it most certainly is a human right. Religious or otherwise. That was actually never up for debate.

The question is that right can only be temporarily, narrowly, and non-discriminately suspended under extraordinary circumstances, and 5-4 agreed that is in fact what has been done.

The problem is that the government is saying that grocery shopping is more important than going to church.

For me personally, grocery shopping is undeniably more important since I am not religious. But for others being denied access to religious services or practice may be a grave sin that is worse than having to wait in longer lines at the grocery store.

On that note, I am going to go shopping.

They are still allowed religious service and practice, but in a controlled way that will not spread the virus.

The issue is that the government is putting more restrictions on the church than it does grocery stores.

If California put the same restrictions on grocery stores, as it did churches they would be more consistent with US law. Otherwise, the government has to prove that the difference in restrictions is so important it outweighs the religious concerns raised by the plaintiffs. (This is a high bar to reach in the US.)

The SCOTUS is being lazy by letting CA characterize a church similarly to a commercial movie theater. That is nonsense. A person can miss a movie without risking eternal damnation, but this may not be true for some church services for some Christians.

People need food to survive. No one needs religion.

I take issue with that statement. Yes, people need food to survive, and yes, one can survive without religion, but that shouldn’t be the argument. It should be that one can worship from home; one doesn’t need to go to a religious building for worship.

> But for others being denied access to religious services or practice may be a grave sin that is worse than having to wait in longer lines at the grocery store

Earnest belief has also led to self inflicted wounds, drowning, and hanging others. I don't think religion should get a pass or get preferencial treatment.

A US government does not get to tell people how to practice religion beyond making a determination whether the belief system is a religion. And, making a determination if a particular practice is legal (to exclude harms like you mention).

That is why I have been careful to describe protected religious practices using the term 'otherwise lawful religious practice'.

The plaintiffs clearly practice a religion. Going to church is clearly a legal religious practice. Thus, the government needs to prove that shorter lines at grocery stores are more important than longer lines or less capacity at churches. The government can't prove that because it can't interpret (or weigh) the importance of going to church.

Food > faith

If you've known any religious people who successfully fasted all food for over a month then you may have seen the evidence for yourself. (Even as a once religious person I found it shocking.)

That hasn’t been decided one way or the other yet. This was just about what would happen while the litigation continues.

Irreparable harm is a fairly flimsy rationale in the context of the shelter in place order. Nearly anything prevent by the order could be construed to cause irreparable harm -- and many are significantly more concrete than suspension of in person religious services, e.g. reduction in non-urgent healthcare.

Not everything is protected by the 1st Amd.

Religious practices are not supposed to be singled out. That is why a neutral rule that did not exempt grocery stores would be more consistent with US law.

I think the court was being lazy here because the covid rules are temporary rather than permanent. But the government cannot measure the harm that may be caused by missing church. You and I can say it is no big deal, but the government really can't say that without judging the merit/efficacy of the religious practice.

It would be interesting to see how this case would go with a fully developed case. Here, I appreciate that the SCOTUS is making a hasty and abbreviated ruling here on the emergency stay request. This makes sense practically in view of CA voluntarily reducing some of the earlier restrictions and given the fact that it seems that restrictions will be further reduced in the near future. Thus, there is no need for the SCOTUS to provide a fleshed out opinion absent a fully developed record and full briefing.

This order is 6 pages, I imagine it would be 60 pages or more if it actually ripened into a real appeal.

Yes, I mentioned this elsewhere as well. They key point is what is a comparable activity. That probably needs to go into law, or can this be used as a precedent later?

How much caselaw would there be on comparison of churches to other venues where people gather?

What sort of disputes in the past would have revolved around the similarities or differences? Perhaps disputes about zoning or occupancy permits? You don't see a whole lot of that kind of dispute rising through the courts to make a lot of case law.

Zoning is a big area where churches often are found to have more freedom. The basic argument is that putting arbitrary restrictions on a church is a violation of the 1st Amd.

There is nuance, such as, if the state can prove to a court that a zoning restriction is necessary. For example, a rule against high occupancy buildings in a flood plain, or the like, may be okay. While a rule against off street parking in a residential neighborhood, or the like, may not be enforced against churches.

Generally, US governments get into trouble if they put restrictions on religious institutions that are not absolutely necessary.

Well, yes, because the right answer is so obvious they felt no need to make citations.

Usually they "take judicial notice"; but for some obvious things even invoking those words is skipped, because the fact doesn't even rise to the level of scrutiny.

Because these are facts not law! As Alito points out he isn't a doctor and he isn't going to second guess them in the middle of a plague.

I do not see any statement from Alito, but he voted with the dissent.

The position of Roberts (writing for the majority) is that:

> Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary,"

Which is to say, even the majority acknlowdges that there are times where the courts should intervene. The question of what a "comparable" secular activity is is very much a legal one.

Oh good catch!

Didn’t he second guess doctors though? There were doctors writing the order but he said it should be overruled. Sorry if I’m misunderstanding, honestly want to understand here.

Edit: I have tried to find what Alito thinks but can’t find any information. He voted to fully reopen churches but did not join the dissenting opinion or wrote his own so I don’t really know what his opinion is.