The emergence of COVID-19 resulted in an unprecedent situation where democratic leaders were forced to struggle between protecting individual liberties and minimizing risk. In the early stages of the pandemic the former Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo imposed an executive order that limited the number of individuals who could gather in a place of worship. His policies that restricted religious attendance were enacted in areas of New York classified as “red” or “orange” zones. In red zones, no more than 10 people could attend a religious service. In orange zones, no more than 25 individuals could attend a religious service. In response to Cuomo’s policies, The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn appealed his restrictions on the basis that they violated the Free Exercise Clause of the first Amendment.
In November of 2020, the Supreme Court heard Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Andrew Cuomo and decided whether the church should be awarded their application for relief. In a close 5-4 decision, the court decided in favor of the Church and granted the appellants immediate relief of Cuomo’s restrictions. The court argued that even in a public health crisis such as COVID-19, it is unconstitutional to restrict religious services. The concurring justice, Justice Gorsuch, sided with the Church because of the 1st amendment’s protection of religious minorities. The appellants referred to the discriminatory nature of gerrymandering that resulted in red and orange zones being predominantly religious communities. The religious communities who felt targeted were religious minorities such as Roman Catholics and Orthodox Jews. In his decision, Gorsuch refers to the courts obligation to protect minorities from the rule of the majority, an obligation that outweighs the health risks of COVID. The concurring opinion also interpreted religious services in the context of the pandemic. In this context, they deemed religious services as “essential” and therefore religion should receive the same exemptions as essential businesses and other services.
The dissent, led by Justice Sotomayor, disagreed with the courts decision to label houses of worship as essential. Sotomayor criticized treating religious services in a similar fashion to banks and grocery stories, citing the role of public health in Cuomo’s policies. The court deemed Cuomo’s policies as discriminatory towards religious communities and therefore not neutral, Sotomayor; however, viewed the policies as an effort to mitigate risk.
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo illuminates the inevitable influence cultural values has on the American court system. The court’s decision was especially important because it marked the first decision of newly appointed Justice Amy Cohen-Barrett. The COVID-19 pandemic became a politicized and polarized phenomena that was interpreted differently on the basis of one’s partisan affiliation. The connection between one’s values—shaped by their partisanship, religious identification, etc. — and COVID is highlighted by the party affiliations of the concurring opinion and the dissent. The concurring opinion, led by republic Justice Gorush, was backed by conservative justice Kavanaugh, Barret and Roberts. The dissent was comprised of liberal justices as such as Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan. Other recent decisions that address LBGTQ individuals, gender fluidity and abortion show how contemporary, cultural values are being evaluated on a federal and legislative level. Whether something is constitutionally permissible or not is left to interpretation of justices, who all inherently incorporate their own bias and partisanship into their opinions. Our current age of polarization and dogmatic devotion to social constructs results in the court’s deciding the legality of one’s convictions.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1874/roman-catholic-diocese-of-brooklyn-v-cuomo
