Here's the Breakdown of the First Wave of Strikes Against Iran. It's Staggering.
CNN Was Forced to Admit That A LOT of Iranians Are Celebrating the...
Why Kamala Harris' Remarks on the Iran Strikes Are Beyond Laughable
Trump Has the Courage to Take on Iran
Trump’s Operation Epic Fury: Striking the Evil Iranian Regime That Obama and Biden...
The USCCB Is Wrong About Birthright Citizenship
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 309: What the Bible Says About Mystery
Candace Carlson
F-35s Take Out Iranian MiGs for First Air-to-Air Kills In Operation Epic Fury
Iranian State Media Issues Threats Against Trump in Pitiful Response to the Death...
Rethinking 'Doubting Thomas' Jefferson
Atheist Group’s Attack on Health Care Sharing Ministries Is a Direct Assault on...
The Lies Before the Storm, Part 2
Marriage Is a Covenant Not a Contract
Purim Is Here and Israel Is at War With Iran Once Again
Tipsheet

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

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