COURT GRANTS COVID RELIGIOUS LIBERTY VICTORY
Key Facts
On October 6, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a new “cluster initiative” in order to fight the rising numbers of COVID-19 cases that were appearing in clusters. This classified different areas of New York into zones. For religious services, red zones allowed only 10 people maximum; orange zones allowed up to 25 total people maximum; yellow zones allowed up to 50% capacity of the building. [1]
Many of the red and orange zones were primarily Orthodox Jewish communities. This fact, and other comments he made, suggested he was targeting those specific communities. [2] The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn also later filed suit.
On November 25, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to grant injunctive relief against the executive action, despite the fact that just days before the ruling, Governor Cuomo reclassified the areas encompassing the churches and synagogues as being in yellow zones. [3] Their primary reason for this ruling was that religious gatherings were being treated unfairly compared with equivalent secular gatherings.
On December 3, another victory for religious liberty came when the Supreme Court sent a case regarding coronavirus restrictions on a California church back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration based on their ruling on Governor Cuomo’s orders. [4]
Key Scriptures
Romans 13:1-2 “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”
Luke 20:25 “He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."”
Hebrews 10:24-25 “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”
Matthew 16:18 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Want to Know More?
Full Supreme Court Decision Text: Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo
Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission - The Supreme Court changes course on religious liberty and the pandemic
Becket Fund - Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo
New York Times - Midnight Ruling Exposes Rifts at a Supreme Court Transformed by Trump
CNN - Supreme Court sides with California religious ministry against state Covid restrictions
Scotusblog - Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services
The First Amendment Encyclopedia - Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020)
National Law Review - Supreme Court Orders Preliminary Injunction in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo
Application
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Christians have been debating how best to follow government mandates concerning meeting together in churches. This has included things such as regulations on worship; contact tracing; wearing masks; and whether we should meet indoors, outdoors, or online.
This has led many churches to come into conflict with governing authorities because many government officials do not consider churches “essential” in the same way that they do some businesses or secular endeavors. One such instance came between Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley in Nevada and Steve Sisolak, Nevada’s governor. He had imposed much harsher restrictions on churches than on casinos and other businesses deemed “essential.” Back on July 24, in Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the governor of Nevada, allowing health officials in each state to make their own decisions on how best to deal with the pandemic.
A similar situation has recently arisen in New York. On October 6, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a new “cluster initiative” in order to fight the rising numbers of COVID-19 cases that were appearing in clusters around New York City. This classified different areas of New York into zones. Depending on the zone, religious services were only allowed to have 10 or 25 people maximum while nearby businesses had much looser restrictions put on them. Many of the zones with the harshest restrictions were Othodox Jewish communities. Therefore, a lawsuit was brought by those communities and were later joined by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn.
On November 25, The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the religious communities to grant injunctive relief against the executive action. Their primary reason for this ruling was that religious gatherings were being treated unfairly compared with equivalent secular gatherings. Responding to the unfair nature of the restrictions, Neil Gorsuch wrote, “Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?” He concluded by saying, “It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques.”
Why the difference when compared to the decision earlier this year? In large part, this was due to the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and being replaced by Amy Coney Barrett. Already, this decision is having consequences outside of New York. On December 3, The Supreme Court sent a case regarding coronavirus restrictions on worship services for Harvest Rock International Ministry (Pasadena, CA) back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration based on their ruling on Governor Cuomo’s orders.
What Does the Bible Say?
As has been the case throughout the entire pandemic, Christians have been trying to find a balance between three of Scripture’s commands which most apply to our situation: submitting to the governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17), loving our neighbor (Matthew 22:39, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14), and meeting together as a church (Hebrews 10:24-25). Different churches have come to various conclusions about how to balance these commands. Some have leaned more heavily on the first by following all rules and guidance given by the government. Others have leaned more heavily on the third by meeting in such a way that disobeys the government’s laws. Many of these churches have come to different conclusions both out of a heart to love their neighbor, with some pointing to the risks posed by COVID, where others point to the risks posed by the lockdowns. The conclusion one should come to regarding such matters is not simple, and the right answer could be different depending on your church’s particular situation.
Christians are called to be engaged in politics and with our culture. In the United States, where we have a Constitutional right to religious freedom, part of what engagement can look like is to ensure that churches are being treated fairly according to the law. This can take several forms like bringing lawsuits or even engaging in civil disobedience. Or it could look like peaceably abiding by the law and praying for God to change the hearts of your civic leaders. Or it could be a combination of many of these things. Regardless, Christians should continue to seek God’s wisdom for discerning which path forward is best for their church and gospel witness to the culture.
Conclusion
The recent Supreme Court decision for religious groups in New York in many ways represents the impact that elections can have on our daily lives. With Amy Coney Barrett being appointed to the Supreme Court by President Trump, this has given Christians greater hope that their religious liberty will be protected by our judicial system. Christians must prayerfully continue to move forward with humility while praying for our governmental leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-2) and seeking to do what is best for our churches and our communities.