The newest addition to the Supreme Court cabinet, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, has changed the field in regards to restrictions of religious institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. I predict that as part of an expanded conservative bloc on the court, her decisions will continue to limit pandemic restrictions and endanger citizens with the guise of false infringement upon the constitution. Justice Barrett, a newly Trump-appointed Justice, leans extremely to the right, according to The Washington Post. She sided with the court’s other Republican-appointed judges, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito in the recent case in which the Supreme Court sided with religious groups in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions in New York, see South Bay United Pentecostal Church v Gavin Newsom, Governor of California. This contradicts a previous precedent set when Justice Ginsburg was on the court, in which the Supreme Court rejected a request from a California church to block restrictions on in-person services. The Supreme Court, with its enhanced conservative presence thanks to Barrett, will likely make decisions which are detrimental to public safety.

The South Bay Pentecostal Church asked the Supreme Court to overturn California Governor Gavin Newsom’s restrictions on in-person church services, according to South Bay United Pentecostal Church v Gavin Newsom, Governor of California. They argued that “although curbing the pandemic is a laudable goal [Newsom’s orders] arbitrarily discriminates against places of worship in violation of their right to the Free Exercise of Religion under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” The policy they argued against restricted church services to 25% capacity or 100 people max. Their discrimination argument stems from the fact that other industries are permitted to operate at higher capacity levels. For example, shopping centers in California were allowed to operate at up to 50% capacity, double that of religious institutions. In response to this, President Trump even announced that he could “override” governors’ decisions and called upon them to reopen religious institutions for services, according to CNN. The Center for Disease Control, a government run organization, offered guidelines for religious institutions at President Trump’s behest. The CDC announced that “Religious institutions should provide soap and hand sanitizer, encourage the use of cloth masks and clean their facilities daily if they want to open while coronavirus is still spreading.” Also, they added that “Churches, synagogues, mosques and other institutions should also promote social distancing and consider limiting the sharing of objects such as books and hymnals.”

In May, The Supreme Court decided, in a 5-4 decision, to reject the South Bay Pentecostal Church’s request. Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberal judges and explained that the restrictions are in line with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and that many similar restrictions are in place for secular gatherings, such as concerts, sporting events, and theater performances. In rejecting the church’s request, the justices explained that there was no cure for the virus and taking down restrictions on any organization was simply not safe. The conservative judges felt and dissented. Justice Kavanaugh, writing for Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch, said the church would suffer "irreparable harm from not being able to hold services on Pentecost Sunday in a way that comparable secular businesses and persons can conduct their activities." These justices prized incalculable spiritual harm over demonstrated Coronavirus risk during services. The final decision emphasized the risk and harm that the Coronavirus pandemic has caused, along with the similar restrictions imposed upon other secular organizations.

Five months later, a similar situation arose in New York. A Roman Catholic Diocese in Brooklyn and a group of Orthodox synagogues challenged Governor Andrew Cuomo’s order that limited in-person attendance at religious institutions to 10 or 25 people in certain risk areas of New York. The Brooklyn diocese, a large part of the New York religious scene, stated that the order “effectively closes” churches, yet allows businesses deemed essential by the Governor to remain open. "In short, the pandemic alone cannot justify overbroad, untailored closure orders of indefinite duration directed at all houses of worship that in another time would plainly be found to violate the Constitution," the Brooklyn Diocese lawyers say in court papers. The state responded by stating that these restrictions were not discriminatory and are more favorable towards religious institutions than comparable secular gatherings in the state. Also, this order would help protect public safety and allow residents to “return to their normal lives”, according to New York state Attorney General Letitia James. The state Department of Health targeted its restrictions on ZIP codes with highest Covid-19 rates, identifying problematic clusters and then instituting these rules. James highlighted a "documented history of religious gatherings serving as Covid-19 super-spreader events.” The federal appeals court ruled in favor of Cuomo and his order.

Case closed, right? Not quite. The Brooklyn diocese brought their case to the Supreme Court, and there is one important difference between the California and New York cases:: conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett has replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the bench. The court, in a 5-4 decision, sided with the Brooklyn diocese. The decision argued that the restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because they were harsher upon the religious organizations than the secular ones. The church has complied with the public health guidelines in the past and somehow should be rewarded with an overturn of restrictions as the pandemic barrels on. Justice Roberts’ dissenting opinions stated that “the Governor revised the designations of the affected areas [and] none of the houses of worship identified in the applications is now subject to any fixed numerical restrictions”.

Justice Barrett’s addition to the court is clearly detrimental in this situation. The court now supports unsubstantiated discrimination claims over public heath. In both decisions, the governors presented evidence that secular organizations operate with the same restrictions and that discrimination is unfound. Furthermore, in the Brooklyn diocese decision, the governor even revised the designations in response to the allegations. This fifth justice who, in times of crisis, supports unrestricted religious gatherings opposed to regulating numerical gatherings is unacceptable. Along with the fact that “Our Constitution principally entrusts the safety and the health of our people to the politically accountable officials of the States,” according to Jacobson v Massachusetts (cited by Justice Roberts), we must continue to hold public safety as paramount in decisions on the first amendment.

Bibliography
de Vogue, Ariane. California church going to Supreme Court on in-person restrictions. 2020. CNN Politics, https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/politics/california-church-supreme-court-coronavirus-restrictions/index.html 

de Vogue, Ariane. “In a 5-4 Ruling, Supreme Court Sides With Religious Groups in a Dispute Over Covid-19 Restrictions in New York.” CNN Politics, 26 Nov 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/26/politics/supreme-court-religious-restrictions-ruling-covid/index.html

de Vogue, Ariane. “Supreme Court Rejects Request From California Church To Block Restrictions On In-Person Services.” CNN Politics, 30 May 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/30/politics/supreme-court-california-church-coronavirus/index.html 

Jason, Windett, and Harden Jeffrey. “Amy Coney Barrett is Conservative. New Data Shows Us How Conservative.” The Washington Post, 22 Oct 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/22/amy-coney-barrett-is-one-most-conservative-appeals-court-justices-40-years-our-new-study-finds

Supreme Court of the United States. “Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governer of New York.” 25 Nov 2020, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf 

Supreme Court of the United States. “South Bay United Pentecostal Church v Gavin Newsom, Governor of California.” 29 May 2020, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf