So I’m reading the majority opinion now on Brooklyn Diocese v. Cuomo, and so far it’s… not that awful? Scroll down for more.
The majority is saying the regulations weren’t neutral, that they restricted religious gatherings more than other gatherings, and that they “gerrymandered” the red zone to include all the relatively traditional synagogues that are thought by some to have the worst compliance with public safety requirements.
is based on mootness. He says the regulations were relaxed anyway before SCOTUS had time to rule, so shrug emoji. So, not a ringing rejection on principle. Breyer’s dissent is similar but he gives a little more weight to the infectiousness of the virus.
Sotomayor though, wow.
She’s more or less saying that if drawing the red zone in a way that limits religious express is a cause for strict scrutiny, then restricting immigration from countries that have nothing in common but a lot of Muslims should also be subject to strict constitutional scrutiny. Bam!
One more thing
Appeals court opinions, on cases that aren’t inherently very technical, are usually easy to read after you get past a couple paragraphs of jargon that you don’t care about.