# Supreme Court upholds California's Covid-19 Restrictions **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 30, 2020, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741 "2020-05-30T17:18:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2020, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/81 "2020-06-07T11:55:37Z")
Sorry to bump this, but one of the Kentucky churches that took issue with the ban on religious services has had an outbreak of COVID-19 cases. > **[Church whose pastor threatened to sue Beshear over banning in-person services...](https://www.k105.com/2020/06/05/church-whose-pastor-threatened-to-sue-beshear-over-banning-in-person-services-has-covid-19-outbreak/)** > > The church whose pastor joined Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron in threatening to sue Gov. Andy Beshear in April if the governor didn't rescind an executive order preventing churches from ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/82 "2020-06-16T07:57:59Z")
- > [@](#): > > **Numbers 31:23 King James Version (KJV) > 23 Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water.** - There’s your biblical solution, UltraVires. Let the religious Christians squeeze into their churches despite the greatly increased risk of their propagating the plague, but then burn their churches down around them thereby purifying them, and for those who’s faith is not strong enough for the fire, then purify them by drowning them in holy wine with a sprinkle of holy water mixed in. That’s a win-win for everyone: the Christians get purified and gain immediate admission into their heaven, and everyone else is no longer at risk due to the exponential propagation of the plague by these Christians. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/83 "2020-06-16T20:29:18Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > You are pointing out limits on rights at the edges. No, you can’t falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. It doesn’t follow from that that you can pass laws forbidding criticism of the President. > > And likewise, you can pass laws against virgin sacrifice and that does impinge on some far out religions, but it doesn’t follow that you can therefore ban in person church services. > > In Heller, Scalia responded to Breyer’s “interest balancing” dissent: > > Likewise, the freedom to attend church, even in a pandemic, has been given to us and should be unassailable by current politicians. Otherwise they are “no constitutional guarantee at all” if the government can decide that it is simply too dangerous to allow it now. Spare me Big Tony and his Strict Constructionist Horse Hockey. The notion that the enumeration of a right making it unassailable was disproved long before the United States of America was born. The government is trying to protect not only the church-goers, but the people who would then be exposed to them. Wearing the First Amendment on your t-shirt is not going to keep COVID-19 from infecting someone you meet at Lowes after you went to church for four hours, speaking in tongues and handling snakes. And what the flying hell is the “edge” of a right? Rights have edges? Do they have centers? Are rights round or square? Triangular, maybe? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/84 "2020-06-16T23:41:26Z")
[Record Spike in New Coronavirus Cases Reported in Six US States](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa/record-spike-in-new-coronavirus-cases-reported-in-six-u-s-states-as-reopening-accelerates-idUSKBN23N32O) (Reuters): > [@](#): > > In Oregon, health officials are trying to contain an outbreak of over 200 new cases in Union County linked to the Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church. > > The Oregonian newspaper reported that a video on the church’s Facebook page on May 24 showed hundreds of people standing close together singing. Large gatherings were not permitting (sic) under the state’s reopening plan at that time. The video has since been deleted, it said. I wonder how many others have since become infected in our state through these people, who had nothing to do with the Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2020, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/85 "2020-06-17T05:38:28Z")
For everyone who posted in this thread that was critical of my point of view, how come you have not equally criticised the BLM protestors who gather by the thousands? They could have had Zoom meetings. How dare they expose everyone to the virus? The unanimous answer from the left seems to be that it is their First Amendment right to protest. \*smackshead. Someone should tell them, yeah but you cannot possess kiddie porn! I personally see no other reason than your subjective value judgment that the BLM protests were very positive, but church, meh, not needed that bad. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2020, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/86 "2020-06-17T05:42:47Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I personally see no other reason than your subjective value judgment that the BLM protests were very positive, but church, meh, not needed that bad. I oppose the BLM protests (those that weren’t done with masks or distancing, that is) as much as anyone else, but…yes, there is a difference in terms of urgency. There is no urgent need to go to church. People can worship at home or online - indeed, numerous Christians in less-religiously-friendly nations around the globe have done just that for millennia. There was/is considerably more urgent need for people to protest against ongoing police brutality. But yes - the BLM protesters should have strictly adhered to masks and distancing since the virus couldn’t give a flying \_ \_ \_ \_ about racial justice, and many of them did not. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2020, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/87 "2020-06-17T06:20:57Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I oppose the BLM protests (those that weren’t done with masks or distancing, that is) as much as anyone else, but…yes, there is a difference in terms of urgency. There is no urgent need to go to church. People can worship at home or online - indeed, numerous Christians in less-religiously-friendly nations around the globe have done just that for millennia. > > There was/is considerably more urgent need for people to protest against ongoing police brutality. > > But yes - the BLM protesters should have strictly adhered to masks and distancing since the virus couldn’t give a flying \_ \_ \_ \_ about racial justice, and many of them did not. Seems to me that a lot had to do with the shortage of masks in the US until recently > **[Thousands rally in Leeds to support Black Lives Matter protest](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-53042664)** > > People taking part in the "peaceful" protest in Leeds say they "will no longer be silenced from fear". > **[BLM masks meant for protesters seized by law enforcement](https://www.audacy.com/kmox/articles/news/blm-masks-meant-for-protesters-seized-by-law-enforcement)** > > Law enforcement agents have reportedly seized hundreds of cloth masks that read “Stop killing Black people” sent to St. Louis and other cities by a Black Lives Matter-affiliated organization. Besides the video showing the peaceful protesters with masks, and police also joining them, in one peaceful protest in Saint Lois; the article reported also about: > [@](#): > > ST. LOUIS (KMOX) - Hundreds of cloth face masks being sent to protesters supporting the “Black Lives Matter” movement in St. Louis have been seized by law enforcement and so far, no explanation has been given as to why. > > The Movement for Black Lives, a group that began in 2014 after the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., bought the masks to protect demonstrators and was sending them to Minneapolis, New York City, Washington and here in St. Louis. The group claimed in an Instagram post that, “Law enforcement has seized these masks and are not stating why!” Sure, there were several protesters that did not wear masks if they could had done it, they get criticism from me. Although there also another item that was different from a church gathering, being outdoors is less risky regarding getting the virus, less if a mask is used; being indoors with no masks? Typhoid Mary would be proud. That is what some churches are being criticized about. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2020, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/88 "2020-06-17T11:00:30Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > For everyone who posted in this thread that was critical of my point of view, how come you have not equally criticised the BLM protestors who gather by the thousands? They could have had Zoom meetings. How dare they expose everyone to the virus? > > The unanimous answer from the left seems to be that it is their First Amendment right to protest. \*smackshead. Someone should tell them, yeah but you cannot possess kiddie porn! > > I personally see no other reason than your subjective value judgment that the BLM protests were very positive, but church, meh, not needed that bad. First, most of the pictures I saw showed most people wearing masks. Second, they were outside, rather than inside singing into each others mouths. Third, you really can go to church through an online meeting, but you can’t protest through an online meeting – can you clarify what you meant there? It doesn’t seem to be a legitimate proposal on your part. I wasn’t happy with the crowded protests, but I understand the urgency – do you understand how these protests are more urgent than your regular Sunday church? And, your sideswipe at “the Left” is utter bullshit. First of all, there were right wing protests before left wing ones – you may recall the guy screaming, unmasked, right into the cops face. Second of all, Cuomo, for example, was very worried about the protests, warning that he may have to re-instate the lockdowns. Third of all, there are plenty of “the Left” who are churchgoers. So, care to try again? ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2020, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/89 "2020-06-17T14:24:28Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > For everyone who posted in this thread that was critical of my point of view, how come you have not equally criticised the BLM protestors who gather by the thousands? They could have had Zoom meetings. How dare they expose everyone to the virus? > > The unanimous answer from the left seems to be that it is their First Amendment right to protest. \*smackshead. Someone should tell them, yeah but you cannot possess kiddie porn! > > I personally see no other reason than your subjective value judgment that the BLM protests were very positive, but church, meh, not needed that bad. And how come you conveniently ignored my question in post 78? I’d generously assumed you hadn’t been back to the thread but now I have to assume IOWRDI. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2020, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/90 "2020-06-17T19:45:32Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Third, you really can go to church through an online meeting Respectfully, I think this is an opinion statement and not a position that would hold water in court. So too is your claim that protests cannot take place online or from one’s own home. The real argument you would have to make is that the right to assemble for political protest is more fundamental than the right to assemble for religious worship. The previous decision which sparked this thread involved comparisons with grocery stores, and the implicit argument there is that the right to assemble for groceries is more fundamental than the right to assemble for religious worship. No judge wants to come close to deciding whether politics or religion is somehow more fundamental, and so I think you would have a tough time selling this new argument to the courts. With food I think there is a lot more leeway in saying food is more essential than religion, at least insofar as the state is concerned during an emergency situation. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2020, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/91 "2020-06-17T20:35:27Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The previous decision which sparked this thread involved comparisons with grocery stores, and the implicit argument there is that the right to assemble for groceries is more fundamental than the right to assemble for religious worship. Actually, that’s not at all what the previous decision was really about. It was not really a comparison between churches and grocery stores at all; it was a comparison between places that draw different types of crowds for different types of activities for different lengths of time. As Roberts’ decision makes clear, and as **Hamlet** accurately pointed out in the OP of this thread, the question was whether churches were more akin to “lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time,” or whether churches were more like “grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.” Roberts’ central argument was that the first group was more like churches than the second group, and because these “comparable secular gatherings” has also been restricted under the California order, it was acceptable to restrict church gatherings also. Kavanaugh, in his dissent, argued that the “comparable secular businesses” that the court should be considering included “factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries.” It’s difficult, in cases like this, to draw clear lines, but it seems to me that Roberts’ argument here is much stronger. Think about how long people spend in a church service, how people are arranged, and what they do there, and ask yourself if it’s more like a movie showing or a lecture or a concert than like a grocery store or a bank or a laundromat. Seems much more like the first group than the second to me. I would also suggest, in addressing your (incorrect) assertion that the case was about the right to assemble for groceries versus the right to assemble for religious worship, that if you can’t buy food, you might end up discovering much sooner than you would like whether or not your belief in God was justified. There’s a reason that Thomas Jefferson, following John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers, listed the right to life first among the natural rights accruing to human beings upon their birth. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2020, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/92 "2020-06-17T21:18:33Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Actually, that’s not at all what the previous decision was really about. Yes, you’re right. I tried to go back and edit it but you know, timeouts, and then I just stopped caring. But I think it must also be admitted that protests are very much in the former group along with lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, etc. where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2020, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/93 "2020-06-17T22:08:47Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > For everyone who posted in this thread that was critical of my point of view, how come you have not equally criticised the BLM protestors who gather by the thousands? They could have had Zoom meetings. How dare they expose everyone to the virus? Well one reason is that this thread is about attending church. The questions about about other things like protests, sporting events, and theaters weren’t part of the OP. Yes you brought them up, but this thread was about the Supreme Court decision about attending church. Nothing about BLM protests have gone up there. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2020, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/94 "2020-06-18T01:23:50Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I will also point out that Friday the Supreme’s [denied a Chicago area church’s request for an injunction against Gov. Pritzgers orders](https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052920zr1_fe9g.pdf). I think in that case, the governor changed the rules (from allowing just 10 people to allowing up to 100), so the Court didn’t need to get involved. Well, [the 7th Circuit issued its opinion in this case](http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2020/D06-16/C:20-1811:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:2531757:S:0) concluding that: “Illinois has not discriminated against religion and so has not violated the First Amendment, as Smith understands the constitutional requirements.” The main question: “So what is the right comparison group: grocery shopping, warehouses, and soup kitchens, as plaintiffs contend, or concerts and lectures, as Illinois maintains?” And the Court’s answer: “We line up with Chief Justice Roberts.” ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2020, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/95 "2020-06-18T11:02:48Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Respectfully, I think this is an opinion statement and not a position that would hold water in court. So too is your claim that protests cannot take place online or from one’s own home. The real argument you would have to make is that the right to assemble for political protest is more fundamental than the right to assemble for religious worship. The previous decision which sparked this thread involved comparisons with grocery stores, and the implicit argument there is that the right to assemble for groceries is more fundamental than the right to assemble for religious worship. > > No judge wants to come close to deciding whether politics or religion is somehow more fundamental, and so I think you would have a tough time selling this new argument to the courts. With food I think there is a lot more leeway in saying food is more essential than religion, at least insofar as the state is concerned during an emergency situation. > > ~Max The claim that you can go to church online is a statement of fact, not an opinion, because churches have had services online. Care to retract that? Protests happening in online meetings is a ludicrous idea to me, since only those people in the meeting would hear the protests – you’d be preaching to the choir. Maybe you can flesh out this idea a little and I’ll engage further on it. I’m not making the argument that the right to assemble for political purposes is in some way more important than the right to worship. I’m making the argument that there are many ways to worship (outside, in an online meeting, with your family at home), but there fewer ways to assemble to protest. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2020, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/96 "2020-06-18T16:11:34Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > The claim that you can go to church online is a statement of fact, not an opinion, because churches have had services online. Care to retract that? The claim that online church meetings qualify as church is an opinion statement. > [@RitterSport](#): > > Protests happening in online meetings is a ludicrous idea to me, since only those people in the meeting would hear the protests – you’d be preaching to the choir. Maybe you can flesh out this idea a little and I’ll engage further on it. I think you have failed to consider certain forms of protest, for example a hunger strike (or any other form of strike) could take place without leaving one’s home. If you livestream the strike from your home news organizations can tap into that footage when they cover it. If you don’t consider a stay-at-home-strike to be _real_ or _sufficient_ protest, again, that is your opinion. But we shouldn’t get too caught up on the urgency of protests versus churches. I claim that both in-person protests and in-person church meetings are in the same category as sporting events, movie screenings, lectures, and concerts, insofar as they involve multiple people in close proximity for an extended period of time. If you cannot argue against this, then the rationale behind the Supreme Court decision referenced by the OP falls apart. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2020, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/97 "2020-06-18T18:12:11Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The claim that online church meetings qualify as church is an opinion statement. I guess that’s technically true, in that all religions really just come down to a matter of opinion. However, it’s a fact that at least some religious have said that online meetings qualify. > [@](#): > > I think you have failed to consider certain forms of protest, for example a hunger strike (or any other form of strike) could take place without leaving one’s home. If you livestream the strike from your home news organizations can tap into that footage when they cover it. If you don’t consider a stay-at-home-strike to be _real_ or _sufficient_ protest, again, that is your opinion. > > But we shouldn’t get too caught up on the urgency of protests versus churches. I claim that both in-person protests and in-person church meetings are in the same category as sporting events, movie screenings, lectures, and concerts, insofar as they involve multiple people in close proximity for an extended period of time. If you cannot argue against this, then the rationale behind the Supreme Court decision referenced by the OP falls apart. > > ~Max I’m ignoring your “certain forms of protest” because we’re discussing the specific protests that have happened (those against the lockdown and the BLM ones) – hunger strikes are irrelevant. You’re definitely wrong about the Supreme Court decision falling apart because: 1. They didn’t opine on the protests. It’s an open question whether the Supreme Court would rule those could be banned by a state if the state wanted to 2. The protests are outside, whereas the Supreme Court was opining on indoor church services, hence the comparison to movie screenings. ---
**Author:** ![susan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/susan/32/17537_2.png) [@susan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/susan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2020, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/98 "2020-06-18T18:36:34Z")
> [@](#): > > The claim that online church meetings qualify as church is an opinion statement. “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” Matthew 18:20. Is the argument that an online meeting isn’t “gathering”? Is it that worship must occur in a church? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2020, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/99 "2020-06-18T18:54:34Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > I’m ignoring your “certain forms of protest” because we’re discussing the specific protests that have happened (those against the lockdown and the BLM ones) – hunger strikes are irrelevant. What is the difference between claiming that hunger strikes are a valid form of protest, versus claiming that online services are a valid form of worship? Turn your thinking around: we were discussing the specific gathering of people in physical houses of worship - online services are irrelevant. > [@RitterSport](#): > > 1. They didn’t opine on the protests. It’s an open question whether the Supreme Court would rule those could be banned by a state if the state wanted to There’s no question that the state can ban public protests under reasonable circumstances, just as there is no question that the state can ban religious gatherings under reasonable circumstances. It’s part of the state’s police powers. The question is whether the present circumstances are reasonable, in particular, I question whether the state can pass the necessary strict scrutiny when it allows religious gatherings but bans public protests. I believe that specific question (sort of a reverse to the OP) is raised in _Bouferguen v. Cuomo_, currently filed in the Southern District of New York. The ban there is _much_ more strict - ten people - compared to California’s limit of one hundred. > [@RitterSport](#): > > 1. The protests are outside, whereas the Supreme Court was opining on indoor church services, hence the comparison to movie screenings. Not all movie screenings occur indoors, and certainly spectator sports can be outdoor events. The outdoor nature of these gatherings is not mentioned in the opinion, in fact, considerable attention is given to the proximity of the people gathered and the duration of the gathering: “_Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods._” We can cut out the examples to see the main argument: “_Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, […] where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, […] in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods._” ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2020, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741/100 "2020-06-18T19:10:27Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > There’s no question that the state can ban public protests under reasonable circumstances, just as there is no question that the state can ban religious gatherings under reasonable circumstances. It’s part of the state’s police powers. The question is whether the present circumstances are reasonable, in particular, I question whether the state can pass the necessary strict scrutiny when it allows religious gatherings but bans public protests. I believe that specific question (sort of a reverse to the OP) is raised in _Bouferguen v. Cuomo_, currently filed in the Southern District of New York. The ban there is _much_ more strict - ten people - compared to California’s limit of one hundred. Perhaps an even more relevant case to watch is _Givens v. Newsom_, currently filed in the Eastern District of California. You can read the judge deny a preliminary restraining order [here](https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.caed.372628/gov.uscourts.caed.372628.18.0.pdf). "\*Plaintiffs allege the stay at home order enacted by Governor Newsom to slow the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) impermissibly infringes upon their constitutional rights to speak, assemble, and petition the government. […] This Court finds, however, that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims because the State order, and the CHP’s denial of their permit applications, are within the scope of the State’s emergency powers to fight the spread of COVID-19.\*" ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-californias-covid-19-restrictions/854741.md?page=6)