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
Clearly there is a compelling state interest in regulating church gatherings during a pandemic. However, I do see a strong argument in the gerrymandering and discriminatory effects of this policy. Although it is a facially neutral law to protect all citizens alike, it does target religious minorities as their communities were more likely to face worse levels of COVID. Furthermore, the dissent arguing against the essentiality of houses of worship is a poor argument in my opinion as it brings into question sincerity of religion, which is not something the court should base a decision on. Saying that religious groups can use Zoom or similar methods in order to practice their religion can be seen as a denial of their right to free exercise. If these groups feel as if they have a substantial burden to meet in person and practice their religion, it is difficult for the court to argue against that. However, since this was a public health crisis, I believe the restrictions were allowable at first. Although they felt targeted by it, the religious minorities were very susceptible to the risk of the COVID, so these policies were for their own protection. Regardless, I think this is a fine line to consider because denial of the religious gatherings is a slippery slope that require a sufficient compelling state interest to justify.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the decision of the court. I think that restrictions were a violation of the First Amendment right of free exercise. As you listed the red and orange were predominately located in religious zones so I can see how this can be seen as discriminatory against religious communities. I do however see the compelling state interest of the pandemic, but I think that the right to free exercise should be protected. This does target religious communities and altering the amount of people that can attend the religious gatherings is seen to be unconstitutional. I also agree with Katies comment on the idea of saying that groups can use zoom or other methods to meet. This can definitely go against their free exercise if they feel they have a substantial burden from their religion to meet in person. So if there are restrictions in place this can make there person feel like the question of their afterlife could be in danger.
ReplyDeleteThough I can definitely see both sides of this case, I would say that I disagree with the court's decision in this case. As you mentioned, the most compelling part of the majority opinion was their argument about the presence of gerrymandering and how the more religious communities were subject to the heightened restrictions. While I do see how this can be viewed as religious discrimination and a violation of the First Amendment, I believe there is a bigger issue at play here and that is public health. New York, at the time, was at the heart of the pandemic with hundreds of people dying and thousands infected each day. The restrictions were put in place for protection both for individuals and for the community as a whole. In an instance as serious as this, I do believe the government has the right to step in and do what is best for the protection of its people. Additionally, these restrictions weren't preventing these individuals from exercising their religion at all. Instead, they were asking groups to change the way they did so. In the age of zoom and other technological advancements, there were other ways for these people to practice their religion. Therefore, I don't see the restrictions as a violation of the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the decision of the Court. The restrictions are a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, that part is quite obvious. During the pandemic it wasn't about whether or not it was a violation, it was whether or not the violation is justified for the government's compelling interest in slowing the spread of COVID-19 and working to end the pandemic. In this case, during the early months of the pandemic the order that ultimately violated free exercise of religion was justified; however, by November 2020 after several months of complying with the restrictions, the interest of public health was no longer strong enough to justify restrictng religious practices. I vehemently diagree with your argument. You said that the Court's loyalty to the Constitution was not justified in a time of crisis, but loyalty to the Constitution is quite literally the role of the Court. Further, who are we to say one's religious practice is not essential? For Catholics that receive the Holy Communion during their religious services, it is impossible to use Zoom as a means to exercise religion. Receiving the Eucharist and Sacramental wine that is blessed by the Priest and taken as a representation of the body and blood of Jesus Christ is both essential and impossible to do over Zoom. Also, I completely agree with Katie's point that although the order was facially neutral, it was not neutral in practice and ultimately targeted religious groups. Throughout the pandemic, politcal leaders have used COVID-19 restrictions to restrict minoritiy groups and religions far past compelling government interest for public health. Although these orders were necessary during the early months, it is important to acknowledge their resulting burden and reconsider in a timely manner. To allow these orders to stay in place beyond the time that they are necessary is unconstitutional and an unjustifiable violation of individual rights.
ReplyDeleteThis is a difficult one for me. I agree with the court to an extent because of how the red and orange zones were chosen. From my understanding, these zones seemed to specifically target religious areas and communities. However, if gerrymandering was not an issue in this case, I would argue that there is enough of a compelling state interest to restrict religious gatherings. No right is absolute, and the government, under certain circumstances, has the power to limit people's constitutional rights. Additionally, the law doesn't prevent people from attending religious services or partaking in any religious activities. It simply just regulates the number of individuals that can be in attendance at one time.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your perspective. I do not think that the court made the right decision in this case. I think that in some cases, public health needs to take precedent over religious services. Especially, because, as you mentioned, people could meet outside or meet on Zoom. While I understand the desire and right to protect one's freedom of religion, I think that Cuomo made the right decision in implementing a policy for the greater good of NYC in a time of crisis. While it may have targeted religious groups, it was implemented to mitigate a pandemic.
ReplyDelete