Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Cuomo blames Trump justice for Supreme Court Covid-19 decision on NY churches

The court upheld other coronavirus restrictions on houses of worship earlier this year before the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett

Josh Marcus
San Francisco
Friday 27 November 2020 16:48 EST
Comments
Amy Coney Barrett sworn in as Supreme Court justice

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo blamed the new, more conservative composition of the Supreme Court for striking down his Covid restrictions on houses of worship this week. Before the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the appointment of the conservative Amy Coney Barrett, the Court had allowed similar restrictions in other states.

“You have a different court, and I think that was the statement that the court was making,” Mr Cuomo, a third-term Democrat, told The New York Times on Thursday. “We know who he appointed to the court. We know their ideology.”

Late on Wednesday night, the high court ruled five to four that the governor’s restrictions, which limited attendance at houses of worship to 10 or 25 people in areas with the highest infection rates, violated the freedom of religion.

The challenge came from the Roman Catholic diocese in Brooklyn, New York, as well as two synagogues and an Orthodox Jewish association. Subsequent changes have rendered the restrictions in the suit moot, but it’s significant nonetheless because it demonstrates the impact of the newly appointed Justice Barrett.

All three Trump appointees to the court — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ms Barrett — voted for striking down the decision.

“It is time — past time — to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates colour-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques,” Justice Gorsuch wrote.

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s remaining liberals on the dissenting side, who argued that the restrictions don’t violate religious liberty.

“The Constitution does not forbid states from responding to public health crises through regulations that treat religious institutions equally or more favourably than comparable secular institutions, particularly when those regulations save lives,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote. “Because New York’s Covid-19 restrictions do just that, I respectfully dissent.”

The decision was equally significant because it showed how far apart some American Catholics sit from Pope Francis when it comes to Covid rules. The head of the church authored a Thursday New York Times op-ed urging people to embrace the common good and approving of government coronavirus measures in that spirit.

“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!” the Pope wrote.

“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.”

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in