Roman Catholic Diocese Of Brooklyn v. Cuomo

141 S.Ct. 63 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Allegedly due to the Wuhan flu, D imposed severe restrictions on attendance at religious services in areas classified as “red” or “orange” zones. Ps maintain that the regulations treat houses of worship much more harshly than comparable secular facilities. At the hearing in the District Court, a health department official testified about a large store in Brooklyn that could “literally have hundreds of people shopping there on any given day.” Yet a nearby church or synagogue would be prohibited from allowing more than 10 or 25 people inside for a worship service. D has stated that factories and schools have contributed to the spread of the Wuhan Flu but they are treated less harshly than the Diocese’s churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues, which have admirable safety records. Ps sued Ds and now seek the imposition of a temporary injunction while the matter is being adjudicated in court. The District Court found that New York’s regulations were “crafted based on science and for epidemiological purposesIt wrote that they treated “religious gatherings . . . more favorably than similar gatherings” with comparable risks, such as “public lectures, concerts or theatrical performances.” The court also recognized the Diocese’s argument that the regulations treated religious gatherings less favorably than what the State has called “essential businesses,” including, for example, grocery stores and banks. Ibid. But the court found these essential businesses to be distinguishable from religious services and declined to “second guess the State’s judgment about what should qualify as an essential business.” The District Court denied P’s motion for a preliminary injunction. P appealed, and the District Court declined to issue an emergency injunction pending that appeal. The Second Circuit also denied P’s request for an emergency injunction pending appeal, but it called for expedited briefing and scheduled a full hearing to address the merits of the appeal. The court granted certiorari.