![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/scotus-300x212.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In the latest ruling from the high court that prohibits authorities from enforcing limits on religious services, SCOTUS ruled by a 5-4 margin that California’s COVID restrictions on gatherings in private homes violated constitutional rights on the free exercise of religion. The conservative majority found that the Ninth Circuit “did not conclude” that permitted non-religious activities posed a lesser risk of transmission than religious exercises. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three liberal judges in the dissent.<\/p>\n
AW1 Rod sends.<\/p>\n
The decision noted it was the fifth time the court has rejected the Ninth Circuit\u2019s analysis of California coronavirus restrictions<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n By Brie Stimson<\/p>\n The U.S. Supreme Court in a divided decision late Friday ruled in favor of lifting restrictions on in-home religious gatherings, overturning a lower court ruling that upheld Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s limits on people from different homes.<\/p>\n The 5-4 unsigned ruling follows other similar decisions recently regarding churches and the coronavirus pandemic. The decision noted it was the fifth time the court has rejected the Ninth Circuit\u2019s analysis of California coronavirus restrictions.<\/p>\n Chief Justice John Roberts dissented but did not sign the dissenting statement submitted by justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer.<\/p>\n The ruling stated that before it can limit religious gatherings, the government must prove they pose a greater danger than secular activities that remain open, such as shopping or attending movies.<\/p>\n “Otherwise, precautions that suffice for other activities suffice for religious exercise too,” the majority opinion said, adding 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.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Perhaps one of our legal eagles can explain the significance, if any, of Roberts not signing the dissent. Read the entire article here: Fox News<\/a>
\nThanks, Rod.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"