Earlier this month, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo implemented new coronavirus restrictions, but only for certain sections of the city. These new regulations are a response to an increase in positive cases in the city, and include shutdowns of schools and nonessential business, along with limitations on places of worship and the occupancy allowance dependent upon the area.
The areas with the most significant restrictions have a test positivity rate of five percent, making these “hot spots” considerably higher than other areas of the state with one percent positivity rates. Many of these areas also happen to have substantial Orthodox Jewish communities, and Governor Cuomo has no qualms about noting this as he uses photos of maskless crowds of Orthodox Jews as evidence of the new restrictions being necessary.
Residents of impacted communities took such issue with the new restrictions that destruction and violence ensued following Cuomo’s announcement. However, amidst the scene of protests turning chaotic, a question of constitutionality emerged. Many public figures from the Orthodox Jewish community, from religious leaders to lawmakers, expressed discontent towards Cuomo and deemed the restrictions as an unconstitutional infringement upon their freedom to exercise their religion. An Orthodox organization, Agudath Israel of America, even released a statement claiming that the idea of limiting a religious service to only ten people is “appalling is all people of religion and good faith.” Another individual, City Council member Kalman Yeger, directly identified the restrictions as an infringement of their freedoms and held Cuomo directly responsible while urging other members of his faith to refuse to be “deprived” of a right that is afforded to everyone else. Others have even claimed this is a war.
As swaths of people took to the streets in protest of Cuomo’s restrictions, and thus breaking the rules he implemented as there were few masks in sight among the hoards of people, they all had one common theme motivating them: they felt as though their freedom to practice their religion was being infringed upon by limiting the amount of people allowed in a building. Not only was the Orthodox Jewish community outraged by this decision, but members of the Roman Catholic faith also voiced displeasure as the restrictions took them by surprise.
With all of these emotions, concerns, and debates coming from both sides, there are a couple of questions that arise. Is there a legitimate State interest that justifies the government in infringing upon the rights of people to practice their religion in ways they see fit? Is the Orthodox Jewish community being directly discriminated against?
First, it is important to establish that the government is absolutely limiting the rights of the people. They are being made to put restrictions on their worshipping practices, and the limit on the number of people allowed to worship at a time will inherently make it practically impossible for some people to worship on their holy days. However, we know that no right is absolute, which brings us to the question of the presence of a legitimate State interest that would necessitate this infringement. In this case, I do believe that Governor Cuomo is making the best decision. While it is unfortunate that there are restrictions put in place and the feelings of the people affected are definitely justified, ultimately we are in the midst of a pandemic, and the restrictions come after spikes in cases. Because the restrictions were in response to specific outbreaks and there are different levels of severity based on the number of cases, the government is showing they are doing everything in their power to prevent these restrictions and are only implementing them when absolutely necessary. While the people impacted are adults that are free to make their own decisions, large gatherings and a lack of caution puts entire communities at risk.
The next—and arguably most pressing—question, is of specific discrimination. Again, it is true that many areas affected had large Orthodox Jewish communities and it appeared as though Governor Cuomo was targeting them, and the truth is, he was, but not for religious purposes . Ultimately, Cuomo was targeting the areas with the highest testing positivity rates, and communities with large Orthodox Jewish populations happened to be the ones impacted. Cuomo blamed this on the fact that they were large, maskless gatherings that were allowed to happen due to lack of enforcement. Therefore, the angered citizens are both right and wrong. Yes, they are being discriminated against, but not on the basis of their religion, but rather for health and public safety reasons, making the restrictions constitutionally justifiable.
Finally, as unfortunate as it is, this is not a random act. Governor Cuomo is not an evil tyrant who hates religion. Instead, he is trying to work with the people in order to keep them safe but also allow them to still practice their religion by allowing small gatherings and situational restrictions based on severity of the virus in a given area, which affects one demographic more than others.
4 comments:
Based on this reading, I would have to agree that Governor Cuomo's restrictions are not unconstitutional or a violation of free exercise rights. Although a large population of Orthodox Jews were impacted by new coronavirus restrictions, they were not aimed at targeting a religion specifically, rather they were aimed at curbing the rise of cases in such hot spots. It stuck out to me that Cuomo's restrictions were not only on places of religious worship, rather restrictions on the capacity of people allowed were extended to all buildings in a designated area. If the restrictions were only on churches or temples or other places of religious worship, I would present an opposite viewpoint and believe that free exercise rights were being infringed upon because there would be a direct target against religion. However, that does not seem to be the case here, and I believe the state has a compelling interest to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus by limiting the number of people allowed in any building, religious or not.
Yes, I agree with Liz's argument in that Governor Cuomo's restrictions are not in violation of free exercise rights. I feel that by placing certain capacity limitations on buildings in hot spot areas, Governor Cuomo was attempting to achieve a compelling state interest, of preventing the spreading of coronavirus, and in doing this, he placed the least restrictive means for religious groups in order to realistically and substantially mitigate the spread of the virus. Worship was limited, but still possible, and these restrictions were not solely placed on religious establishments, they applied to schools and nonessential business as well. Because of this, there is no hostility towards religion, and even more specifically, there is no preferential treatment of one religion over the other. This confirms that there is a compelling state interest in implementing these restrictions, despite the indirect burden they place on religion, because large community gatherings are dangerous and alarming.
I agree with your argument on this issue and that the restrictions are not unconstitutional. It is clear that the rights of all people in this instance are being limited, but I believe that there is a compelling state interest for protect the citizens and keep everyone healthy and safe.
Additionally, it is purely logical that the harshest restrictions would appear in the hot spots of most positive cases. While the Orthodox Jewish community is the most prominent target of this legislation, the target is not because of their religion. I don't think that religion has (and definitely should not anywhere else) an impact on the way that governments have been restricting rights throughout COVID-19. The primary focus during this time has to be COVID and slowing and hopefully stopping the spread. Unlike other cases that we have examined, there is clearly a compelling state interest here. One could argue that if O'lone and Goldman have their religious freedoms reduced without the world in a pandemic, it would be hard to argue that this case is unconstitutional.
Based on the fact that the restrictions, which Governor Cuomo placed, are applied to all places of gatherings we cannot explicitly say that he was targeting any religious group. The issue then becomes whether or not there is a compelling state interest to prevent people from gathering. The New York gathering restrictions are in phases of 10, 20, and 50 people; each for an individual phase decided by the government. Why in phase one of Cuomo's restrictions does the state interest outweigh the gathering of 11 people? Or in phase two; why does the state interest outweigh the gathering of 21 people? If someone is pregnant do they count for two people, or does the state interest outweigh the presence of a pregnant mother?
Post a Comment