The paper's claim reflects the same arbitrary distinction between religious and secular activities that churches are challenging in court.
SCOTUS rules 7-2 in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru.
COVID-19 control measures violate the First Amendment when they arbitrarily favor secular conduct.
The decision is an important victory against government discrimination on the basis of religion.
America certainly has work to do on race, but ritual and symbolic acts aren't the way forward.
U.S. District Judge Gary Sharpe finds that the state's COVID-19 control measures arbitrarily discriminate against religious conduct.
"The City's argument that temporary selective enforcement of the challenged laws with respect to mass race protests is a matter of public safety ... would perhaps be legitimate but for Mayor de Blasio's simultaneous pro-protest/anti-religious gathering messages, which clearly undermine the legitimacy of the proffered reason for what seems to be a clear exemption, no matter the reason."
A charter school seeking contractors to provide art instruction can't exclude companies just because their web site has religious references.
Conservative legal commentator and experienced religious liberties litigator David French explains why.
The Equality Act would significantly expand government power and it also threatens religious freedom.
As SCOTUS declines to issue an injunction, the chief justice says the state's COVID-19 control measures seem consistent with the First Amendment.
The cap (25% of capacity or at most 100 people) also generally applies to secular gatherings, but not to various commercial establishments.
Supreme Court precedent suggests COVID-19 restrictions that discriminate against churches are presumptively unconstitutional.
They’re still not being treated the same as secular places of gathering, so a legal challenge continues.
I'd love to hear your thoughts about this draft brief.
A short majority opinion, and a long dissent.
If the Mall of America can reopen on June 1, why can’t the Cathedral of St. Paul?
Allowing schools and malls to reopen, but not places of worship, would raise civil rights issues
at least when they specifically target religious institutions, and not similar secular entities.
Can the Supreme Court draw the line?
While governments are shutting down religious services and fining pastors who defy those orders.
So a Maryland appellate court held last month, I think quite correctly (and consistently with the broad trend in other states):
The Obamacare contraception mandate continues to cause legal trouble.
The court concludes that it likely violates the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause, chiefly because the Governor's order has many exceptions for various allowed services.
On the same day Brooklyn’s Hasidic Jews came out for a funeral, hundreds were gathering elsewhere in New York City to watch a military flyover.
While denying Donald Trump's dictatorial impulses, William Barr notes that public health emergencies do not give governments unlimited powers.
A federal judge defended religious freedom by blocking a misguided ban on drive-in Easter services.
So holds a New York appellate court.
Did Louisville actually purport to ban drive-in church services, or was it just asking people to voluntarily refrain? And what notice did the City have about the temporary restraining order request?
Plus: Signal will leave the U.S. market if EARN IT passes, Justin Amash blasts Michigan shutdown orders, and more...
If people are allowed to go to bars, restaurants, libraries, schools, and factories (with suitable social distancing), should they also be allowed to go to church?
A federal judge blocks the Louisville ban on drive-in church services.
A "drafting snafu" with the Legislature's concurring resolution, which endorsed the Governor's initial emergency order, is casting many things in doubt.
That violates the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and probably the freedom of assembly and association.
The annual retelling of the Exodus story reminds us not to take freedom for granted.
My guess is that these are quite unusual, but still noteworthy.
Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanks
Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks