The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
What Restrictions are New York Houses of Worship Still Subject To?
The Court halted the 10- and 25-person limits, but left in place the 25% and 33% occupancy limits.
In October, New York imposed strict requirements on houses of worship in so-called "microclusters."
- In "Red" zones, houses of worship were limited to the lesser of 25% of maximum capacity, or 10 people. In virtually every house of worship, the 10 person limit controlled.
- In "Orange" zones, houses of worship were limited to the lesser of 33% of maximum capacity, or 25 people. In virtually every house of worship, the 25 person limit controlled.
- In "Yellow" zones, houses of worship did not have a hard capacity cap. Rather, they were subject to a 50% occupancy limit.
In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, the Court declared the 10- and 25-person caps unconstitutional with respect to the applicants. As things stand now, none of the applicants are in Red or Orange Zones. Some of the churches and synagogues are in Yellow zones.
I made an error in Part VI of my series. I wrote that the applicants would not be subject to any limitations. I was wrong. The houses of worship in yellow zones are still subject to the 50% maximum occupancy limit. And if New York City snaps to an Orange Zone, the houses of worship would become subject to the 33% maximum capacity cap. And, if any microclusters are placed in the Red Zone, the 25% cap would remain. The applicants did not challenge the percentage caps, and the Supreme Court had no occasion to rule on them.
Now, all houses of worship in yellow zones are subject to the 50% cap. Indeed, my understanding is that houses of worship in "white" zone--that is, are not subject to a microcluster rule--are also subject to the 50% cap.
The Supreme Court's injunction will stretch until the disposition of the certiorari grant. At this point, the Second Circuit's proceedings will have no impact on the state of affairs in New York.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So now the restrictions on churches and synagogues (and, one assumes, mosques) are the same as for restaurants, retail stores, etc., right?
How dare SCOTUS cave in to religion?
The restrictions aren't the same for essential businesses.
"4. Essential retail including
"grocery stores including all food and beverage stores"
Would that include liquor stores? Liquor is a beverage, is it not?
Great Religious Persecutions in History
1. First millenium: Christian tortured in arenas by the Romans.
2. Second millenium: Catholics and Protestants take turns burning each other at the stake; Muslim sects murder and torture each other; Germans kill 6 million Jews; Hindus and Mulims murder, torture burn each other in the India independence wars.
But the greatest religious persecution of all, the one that makes the above and all the others in history look like a walk in the park, makes them look like nothing at all, is that in 2020 governments ask congregations to temporarily forego large gatherings in order to prevent the spread of a serious and often deadly pandemic. Oh the horror!!!! They have no respect or tolerance for the 11th commandment, the key element of Christian and Jewish theology, '"go forth and spread pestilence and disease"
Just to show everyone how pervasive the anti-relgious fervor is, consider this anti-religious, anti-freedom diatribe aimed at the truly dedicated religious men and women, the Kill a Commie for Christers, who would gladly sacrifice the lives of their fellow men and women to preserve their right to spread the virus,
"With some exceptions, governments have made great efforts to put the well-being of their people first, acting decisively to protect health and to save lives. The exceptions have been some governments that shrugged off the painful evidence of mounting deaths, with inevitable, grievous consequences. But most governments acted responsibly, imposing strict measures to contain the outbreak.
Yet some groups protested, refusing to keep their distance, marching against travel restrictions — as if measures that governments must impose for the good of their people constitute some kind of political assault on autonomy or personal freedom! Looking to the common good is much more than the sum of what is good for individuals. It means having a regard for all citizens and seeking to respond effectively to the needs of the least fortunate.
"It is all too easy for some to take an idea — in this case, for example, personal freedom — and turn it into an ideology, creating a prism through which they judge everything."
That atheistic, communistic, godless speaker has got to be silenced. Oh wait a minute, that is Pope Frances
Satanists, strangely enough, haven’t been persecuted too much throughout history...because the Night-Bringer has his disciples’ backs unlike the followers of the usurper! Eman sih si natas!
I had no idea that "Pope Frances" was such a racist:
"refusing to keep their distance, marching against travel restrictions"
Such a racist insult to the brave BLM protesters.
"The Red Zone is for loading and unloading only."
I thought of the same thing!
But.. actually it's the white zone.
Abortionist!
Actually it should be as despicable as that comment should be. After all, tell us precisely what is the offense and how does it violate the oath of office.?
http://bit.do/al-jazirah