With the influx of cold weather and winter approaching, there has been a spike in Covid-19 cases seen within the country, but especially in major cities. New York City Governor Andrew Cuomo has been placing restrictions and regulations on its residents in order to curb the number of increasing cases seen within the last few weeks.
Governor Cuomo has placed a majority of these restrictions on communities located in densely populated areas, known as “hot zones.” The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn happens to be located in what is considered the “red zone”, which orders the churches in the area to reduce their capacity to 10 people inside.
On October 8th, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn filed a lawsuit against the state of New York, claiming that the restrictions implemented by Governor Cuomo violate their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. They are specifically referring to this most recent order of reducing church capacity and services.
Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DeMarzio stated, “We vehemently disagree with the capacity limits being placed on us. They are disrespectful to Catholics who have only been abiding by the rules. We do not agree with such limitations because they completely disregard that our safety protocols have worked.”
The Diocese claims that they have already implemented regulations that have previously worked, and have required their members to wear masks at all times during the service. The Church’s lawyers say that there has been no rationale for Cuomo to take these measures on these specific areas and communities, and that these actions are a direct target at them and their religious freedom.
Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis has refused to block Cuomo’s restrictions after the suit was filed, essentially denying the church’s request for a temporary injunction.
The main question regarding this case is whether or not Governor Cuomo’s recent Covid-19 restrictions do in fact violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The constitutionality of these regulations are called into question when they are disproportionately affecting or targeting a certain religious group as they have been claimed to be.
I believe that public health and safety should be the most relevant and important issue in regards to this case. However, there are many factors in this situation that make this case far from a clear back or white situation.
The Diocese Church and its members make the argument that Cuomo’s restrictions are infringing on their First Amendment rights by forcing them to reduce capacity to 10-25 people for in person services. They claim that Cuomo has been disproportionately restricting and reducing the capacity of Catholic churches in New York City. The diocese also states that their churches are located in areas that have not played a role in the Covid-19 hot zone spikes: “Capacity to accommodate many worshippers when we have had no significant cases, impedes our right to worship and cannot stand.”
The state of New York argues that these restrictions were only put in place in these areas because they have the greatest population density, and therefore, propose a greater risk of cases. Governor Cuomo was also accused of violating the religious free exercise rights of Orthodox Jews in New York City due to the restrictions he placed that have affected their communities. State lawyers have also found through testing that Covid-19 cases have gone down in correlation to these regulations. However, they have gone down enough to know they are working, but not enough to get rid of these limits all together. Attorneys for the state also make the point that these places of worship are not being closed entirely, unlike some nonessential businesses that have had to shut down.
Although I do acknowledge the importance of public health and safety during this time, I personally think that the Court may side with the diocese. I think that the diocese does have a right to be angry about these capacity restrictions, but these regulations have ultimately been put in place for the interest of the public. As governor, Cuomo must abide by New York state laws to ensure the public health and safety of citizens, especially in the second wave of a global pandemic. If these restrictions are helping to prevent a new wave of Covid-19 cases then it is therefore necessary to keep these regulations in place. Judge Garaufis stated that, ”The potential to save lives outweigh the damage the church would suffer.” If these provisions are kept in place, it could result in the avoidance of many, unnecessary deaths. I do think that there are valid points to each argument, but at this very moment in time, public health and safety needs to be prioritized, and therefore, supersedes large religious gatherings in churches.
2 comments:
It seems like we’ve touched on this issue in a bunch of different cases throughout the semester. At this point, I’m not entirely sure if it’s even an issue of free exercise anymore. More fundamentally, I’ve found that it comes down to the extent to which the government should protect or rather restrain its people. I know this question precedes the construction of any legal/political system, but its worth really pondering where that line should be. The reason I think it doesn’t necessarily concern religion, at least directly, is because when it comes to something like obvious crimes: larceny, assault, kidnapping, its clear that these are moral issues. However, when it comes to things like government restrictions on masks and gatherings, these strike me, as more in line with something like traffic laws or something like that. I don’t mean to draw a direct equivalency between these two things, but they seem of the same sort, at least in a general way. What I mean to say is that, like on the highway, the speed limit could easily be 5 miles higher or lower, maybe 10 or 20 and so and so forth. The same seems the case with masks. You could just as easily limit people to gatherings of 30 or 50 or they could maybe gather in groups of 25, but don’t have to wear masks. Or they could just get temperature checked at the door, wear masks and meet in whatever size groups they want. The restrictions just seem so malleable, so at the end of the day, why not just let people go ahead and enjoy their services. I’m not making a judgment here, but it seems like people have the opportunity to destroy themselves in some many different legal ways. They could be addicted to cigarettes, causing lung problems. They could consume so much caffeine that they start to have heart problems. People could have a lot of irresponsible sex and end up STD’s or kids they cant care for. People could become obese and place a lot of strain on their joints and organs. Now, of course I’m not calling out people that have clear underlying problems here, but just some obvious ways that people can sort of self-destruct or hurt themselves, whether they intended it or not, yet there’s no law keeping them from doing so. So given the malleability of these types of laws, the numerous legal health hazards, the specific exception protecting the exercise of religion and the willingness of people to put themselves in harms way to pursue their faith, I cant really say I see the argument for church closings. Maybe my sentiments are misplaced and I’m just babbling. This comment ended up being quite a bit longer than I intended. Hopefully whomever chooses to read it got something out of it.
Alyssa, I find the church's argument that their safety procedures have been effective particularly compelling because it demonstrates that Governor Cuomo's edict is not the least restrictive means of fulfilling a compelling state interest. I tend to err on the side of freedom when it comes into conflict with questions of security, and this case is no different. In a pandemic where small subsets of the population are at high risk, they should stay at home, not forced legally but advised medically. The COVID restrictions not only affect religious peoples' right to free exercise, but everyone's right to assemble peaceably as well.
Post a Comment