Supreme Court Allows California To Lift Current Restrictions On Religious Gatherings For Now

After a fifth time holding court concerning the issue of in-home religious gatherings, The Supreme Court eventually ruled against Governor Gavin Newsom’s Covid mandates, according to Fox News.

The lawsuit was filed by a family that hosts spiritual in-home parties asserting that their First Amendment rights were being stepped on.

A divided Supreme Court finally voted in favor of their family as well as their religious freedoms after rejecting it at least 4 unique times.

“Otherwise, precautions that suffice for other activities suffice for religious exercise too.”

Nearly all the court stated that 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 dining at restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time.”

Nearly all the court went further to point out that the State of California can not”assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work.”

Justice Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and John Roberts all voted against relaxing COVID restrictions.

Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer joined in a statement that said that California “has adopted a blanket restriction on-at-home gatherings of all kinds, religious and secular alike.”

Kagan noted that “The law does not require that the State equally treat apples and watermelons.”

The Ninth Circuit stated that”The state reasonably concluded that when people gather in social settings, their interactions are likely to be longer than they would be in a commercial setting.”

The Ninth Circuit also noted, “that participants in a social gathering are more likely to be involved in prolonged conversations; that private houses are typically smaller and less ventilated than commercial establishments, and that social distancing and mask-wearing are less likely in private settings and enforcement is more difficult.”