What a Custodian Just Revealed Adds More Intrigue About the Brown University Shooting
FINALLY: The Trump DOJ Suing DC Over Its Obnoxious Gun Laws
This Man Was Filmed Stealing an ICE Vehicle – the Jury Just Issued...
Lawmakers Seek Inherent Contempt Charges Against Pam Bondi
US in Hot Pursuit of Another Venezuelan Oil Tanker
The Coldplay Kiss Cam Didn’t Ruin Her Life. Bad Choices Did
The Democrats' Human Rights Fallacy
Operation Relentless Justice Cracks Down on Violent Crime Against Children
The Argument Is Getting Louder, and the Window Is Getting Narrower
JD Vance Has Two Words for Neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes
Minnesota AG Brags About Stopping Scammers As the State Reels From $9 Billion...
Trump Administration Terminates Offshore Wind Farms Over National Security Concerns
Guess Who Was Named ‘Antisemite of the Year’
Australian PM Apologizes to Jewish Community After Being Booed at Bondi Beach Vigil
Sarah Huckabee Sanders Defends Christ Ahead of Christmas
Tipsheet

Supreme Court Delivers a Win for Religious Liberty in Case Against Gavin Newsom

AP Photo/Mark Tenally

The Supreme Court ruled late on Friday night that California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) does not have the power to restrict at-home prayer meetings on account of COVID, in a huge win for religious liberty. In a 5-4 ruling, the court concluded that Newsom did not have the power to restrict the rights of those practicing religion, while allowing secular activities to resume.

Advertisement

Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett argued that Newsom’s edicts are discriminatory toward religious practice.

“California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts, and indoor restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time,” they wrote.

The conservative justices pointed out that the Ninth Circuit, where an appeal is pending, did not conclude that secular activities “pose a lesser risk of transmission than applicants’ proposed religious exercise at home.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor sided with Newsom’s restrictive order. Kagan argued that secular and at-home religious activities need not be treated equally as far as restrictions go.

Advertisement

“California limits religious gatherings in homes to three households. If the State also limits all secular gatherings in homes to three households, it has complied with the First Amendment. And the State does exactly that: It has adopted a blanket restriction on athome gatherings of all kinds, religious and secular alike. California need not, as the per curiam insists, treat at-home religious gatherings the same as hardware stores and hair salons—and thus unlike at-home secular gatherings, the obvious comparator here,” she wrote in her dissent.

The court’s ruling delivered another loss to Newsom, who is currently embattled in a recall effort.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement