Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
SCOTUS protects churches from COVID-19 overreach
SCOTUS protects churches from COVID-19 overreach
Jan 31, 2026 11:25 PM

To paraphrase an overrated writer, a spectre is haunting the United States – the spectre of religious repression in the name of stanching the coronavirus. The Supreme Court took a step toward exorcising that threat just before Thanksgiving.

Late Wednesday night, the justices ruled 5-4 to temporarily suspended the enforcement of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s COVID-19 directives, which limit religious services to 10 people if the houses of worship are located in “red zones” or 25 people in “orange zones.” The governor’s directive treats religious believers as second-class citizens, subject to heavier government restrictions than a wide variety of secular businesses and organizations. “The regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment,” the unsigned decision stated.

To pass constitutional muster, any government order restricting the unalienable freedom of religion must be “narrowly tailored” and serve a pelling government interest.” However, the New York order is anything but narrowly tailored. It unduly restricts churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples by shrinking their congregation well below levels necessary to maintain public safety. For instance, two of the churches represented in the lawsuit can modate more than 1,000 people each, and one of the synagogues can hold 400 people; more than two dozen worshipers could easily fit inside while observing social distancing requirements.

“[E]ven in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten,” the decision held. “The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”

The decision underscores the most salient issue at stake in these lawsuits and lockdowns: politicians’ indifference to people of faith and the role of religion in U.S. history. “The only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as ‘essential’ as what happens in secular spaces,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch in his masterful concurrence. “In recent months, certain other [g]overnors have issued similar edicts. At the flick of a pen, they have asserted the right to privilege restaurants, marijuana dispensaries, and casinos over churches, mosques, and temples.”

“That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids,” he concluded.

Leaders in the Secular City do not consider the loss of worship especially grievous and have designed their orders to “perfectly align with secular convenience,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. Yet their faithful constituents bear a real burden. “Catholics who watch a Mass at home cannot munion, and there are important religious traditions in the Orthodox Jewish faith that require personal attendance,” the majority stated.

Gov. Cuomo’s religious restrictions not only discriminated against people of faith, they particularly targeted the munity and contained an underreported, misogynistic provision. “Agudath Israel argues that the [g]overnor specifically targeted the Orthodox munity and gerrymandered the boundaries of red and orange zones to ensure that heavily Orthodox areas were included,” the decision stated. Gov. Cuomo has certainly expressed his hostility to New York’s Orthodox munity, blaming “their religious practices” for his state’s high infection rate. “Gov. Cuomo should have known that openly targeting Jews for a special COVID crackdown was never going to be constitutional,”said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and counsel to the plaintiffs.

The orders doubly discriminated against Jewish women. Justice Goruch noted that “[i]n the Orthodox munity that limit might operate to exclude all women, considering 10 men are necessary to establish a minyan, or a quorum.” In effect, Cuomo found a technicality that banned all Orthodox Jewish women from attending in-person synagogue services on the Sabbath. That stratagem is redolent of California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s church singing ban, which prohibits Eastern Orthodox Christians and Byzantine Catholics from celebrating the Divine Liturgy properly – or anyone from following the Apostle Paul’s injunction to worship the Lord with “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.”

First Amendment litigators hailed the injunction as an important check on government’s ability to discriminate against or unduly burden the free exercise of faith. “This landmark decision will ensure that religious practices and religious institutions will be protected from government edicts that do not treat religion with the respect demanded by the Constitution,” said Avi Schick, an attorney for Agudath Israel of America. Kelly Shackelford of the First Liberty Institute hoped other politicians will understand that “government officials may not abuse their emergency powers to discriminate against Americans of faith.” And they hope other states will take this decision as a warning. “In light of this ruling, we call on all elected officials to amend any religious discriminatory orders,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Ryan Tucker.

Yet it is unclear that the ruling has caused Gov. Cuomo to reconsider his exclusionary and discriminatory use of government power to prohibit the constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion. “Why rule on a case that is moot e up with a different decision than you did several months ago on the same issue?” Cuomo groused to reporters after the ruling. “You have a different court. And I think that was the statement that the court was making.”

If so, it is a message well worth sounding. As Justice Gorsuch wrote in his concurrence “[W]e may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well when we do.”

“Nothing is more dreaded than the National Government meddling with Religion,” John Adams wrote to Benjamin Rush. This decision reaffirmed the Founding Fathers’ spirit and our nation’s unique genius.

The case, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, represents a concerted, ecumenical movement in favor of religious freedom. Its plaintiffs include the Roman Catholic Church and Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox Jewish organization. The nation is richer for their cooperation.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
The disordered soul of Frank Underwood
“Frank Underwood, masterfully played by the award-winning Kevin Spacey, embodies the corruption that so often attends to the pursuit of political power,” says Jordan Ballor in this week’s Acton Commentary, “and as the new season nears it’s worth looking back at where it all began for Francis and Claire Underwood.” In their review of the show’s first season, David Corbin and Alissa Wilkinson rightly observe that the example of Frank Underwood provides an important negative lesson about the need for...
What is comparative advantage?
Note: This is post #32 in a weekly video series on basic microeconomics. What parative advantage? And why is it important to trade? In this video by Marginal Revolution University, economist Don Boudreaux guides us through a specific example surrounding Tasmania — an island off the coast of Australia that experienced the miracle of growth in reverse. Through this example we show what can happen when a civilization is deprived of trade, and show why trade is essential to economic...
5 Reasons you’ll love Acton University (even if you hate conferences)
I have confession to make: I don’t like conferences. I don’t like seminars or conventions, either. I also don’t like colloquiums, symposiums, forums, or summits. I love people (really, I do) and I love discussions about ideas. But something happens when you put them together into a “conference” that causes my introverted tendencies to spike. I’m just not a conference-going kinda guy. That’s probably an odd admission to make, especially in a post in which I try to convince you...
Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo speaks at Acton May 11 on the ‘Trump judges’ and Supreme Court
pictured: Leonard Leo With Neil Gorsuch elected to the Supreme Court in mid April, and a slate of other candidates on Trump’s radar for the lower courts, there is a mitment by the Trump administration to the election of conservative appointees to the federal judiciary. Could this be a judicial renaissance of sorts? Will there be a resurgence of true conservatism and originalism in the courts? To find e join us on Thursday May 11 at Acton’s headquarters in Grand...
Understanding the President’s Cabinet: Attorney General
Note: This is post #16 in a weekly series of explanatory posts on the officials and agencies included in the President’s Cabinet. See the series introductionhere. Cabinet position:Attorney General Department:Department of Justice Current Secretary:Jeff Sessions Succession:The Attorney General is seventh in the presidential line of succession. Department Mission:“The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal...
State Department releases 2017 report on international religious freedom
The State Department recently released its International Religious Freedom Report for 2017.A wide range of U.S. government agencies and offices use the reports for such efforts as shaping policy and conducting diplomacy. The Secretary of State also uses the reports to help determine which countries have engaged in or tolerated “particularly severe violations” of religious freedom in order to designate “countries of particular concern.” A major concern addressed in this year’s report is that “international religious freedom is worsening in...
Development malpractice: When failure in ‘doing good’ is worse than ‘doing nothing’
What happens when governments, NGOs, charities, and churches all converge in scurried attempts to alleviate global poverty, whether through wealth transfers or other top-down, systematic solutions? As films like PovertyCure and Poverty, Inc. aptly demonstrate, the results have been dismal, ranging from minimal, short-term successes to widespread, counterproductive disruption. Surely we can do better, avoiding grand, outside solutions, and ing alongside the poor as partners. Yet even amid the menu of smaller and more direct or localized “bottom-up” solutions, there...
To fight poverty, Oxfam must measure what matters
If people of faith want to reduce global poverty, they must begin by accurately measuring the problem. But a well-publicized report on international poverty distorts the problem and promotes solutions that would leave the world’s poorest people worse off, according to two free market experts. Every year, Oxfam releases a report on global wealth inequality to further the agenda of the World Economic Forum. This year’s entry, titled “An economy for the 99 percent,” was released with the headline: “Just...
This Eastern European nation shows how foreign investment is patriotic
At a time when populist sentiments are on the rise on both sides of the Atlantic, the leader of one former Communist nation has affirmed that free markets open acrossborders area blessing. In anew essay at Religion & Liberty Transatlantic,Mihail Neamtu, Ph.D., argues that the wealth created by foreign investment furthers the national interest. In his mentary, titled“Romania chooses prosperity over populism,”he recounts thenation’s unusually bold embrace of international capital. Urged to keepforeigners out of its economy or restricttheir investment,...
France settles for Macron and malaise
What should American citizens think of Emmanuel Macron and the impact he will have as the next president of France? His outsider status, entrenched opposition, andimprecise political platform may createthe perfect storm for France to continue marching in place, according to anew essay in Religion & Liberty Transatlantic. “The French don’t like change; they like what’s new,” writes Christophe Foltzenlogel, a jurist for the European Centre for Law and Justice (the counterpart to the ACLJ, founded by Jay Sekulow). How...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved