Rights

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A federal judge struck down Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s orders restricting mass gatherings and shutting down business amid the Covid‑19 pandemic as unconstitutional…. (Forbes)

Ruling:

[E]ven in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered. The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms—in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble. … The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a “new normal” where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures. Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. Actions taken by [Gov. Tom Wolf] crossed those lines. It is the duty of the Court to declare those actions unconstitutional.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down a statewide coronavirus stay-at-home order on Wednesday, siding with a legal challenge from Republican lawmakers who said the state’s top public health official exceeded her authority by imposing the restrictions. (Reuters)

Ruling:

…Palm’s order confining all people to their homes, forbidding travel and closing businesses exceeded the statutory authority of Wis. Stat. § 252.02, upon which Palm claims to rely. By the Court.—Palm’s Emergency Order 28 is declared unlawful, invalid, and unenforceable.

The Michigan Supreme Court on Monday denied Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s request to extend emergency powers that she invoked to curb the spread of the coronavirus. … They reaffirmed their initial 4-3 ruling that declared unconstitutional her use of the 1945 emergency powers law. (Fox News)

Ruling:

We conclude that the Governor lacked the authority to declare a “state of emergency” or a “state of disaster” under the [Emergency Management Act of 1976 (EMA)] after April 30, 2020, on the basis of the COVID‑19 pandemic. Furthermore, we conclude that the [Emergency Powers of the Governor Act of 1945 (EPGA)] is in violation of the Constitution of our state because it purports to delegate to the executive branch the legislative powers of state government—including its plenary police powers—and to allow the exercise of such powers indefinitely.

U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Domenico ruled last week that state officials cannot enforce mask-wearing mandates or some limits on the size of gatherings…. (Denver Post)

Ruling:

the Constitution does not allow the State to tell a congregation how large it can be when comparable secular gatherings are not so limited, or to tell a congregation that its reason for wishing to remove facial coverings is less important than a restaurant’s or spa’s.

A federal judge in North Carolina has blocked Gov. Roy Cooper’s executive order that limits indoor religious services to just 10 people during the coronavirus outbreak…. (Fox News)

Ruling:

There is no pandemic exception to the Constitution of the United States or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

[…]

[T]he assembly for religious worship provisions in EO 138 [Executive Order No. 138] represent precisely the sort of “subtle departures from neutrality” that the Free Exercise Clause is designed to prevent.

[…]

At the hearing, we also discussed what the “impossibility” provision in section 6(C) meant for the myriad non-religious entities referenced in EO 138. The Governor's counsel opined that because it would be “impossible” to move the produce out of a grocery store, grocery stores and those who shop there are not subject to the “no-more-than-10-inside-unless-impossible” requirement in section 6(C).

[…]

Not so for religious entities or worshipers. As the Governor's counsel made clear at the hearing, and as the Guidance makes even more clear, a sheriff or other law enforcement official has the power to decide whether a religious person or entity has met the “no-more-than-10-inside-unlessimpossible” requirement in section 6(C).

[…]

These glaring inconsistencies between the treatment of religious entities and individuals and non-religious entities and individuals take EO 138 outside the “safe harbor for generally applicable laws.” […] But wait, there's more inconsistency.

[…]

At oral argument, the Governor's counsel conceded that there is no public health rationale for allowing 50 people to gather inside at a funeral, but to limit an indoor religious worship service to no more than 10 people. Some funerals are religious. Some funerals are not religious. The Governor's counsel could not explain why the Governor trusts those who run funerals to have 50 people inside to attend the funeral, but only trusts religious entities and individuals to have 10 people inside to worship.

The Supreme Court late Wednesday blocked New York officials from limiting religious gatherings…. (Epoch Times)

Ruling:

[E]ven in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.