Townhall Media Is Hiring!
Don't Believe the Regime Media
There's a Serious Problem With David Hogg's Young People Outreach Strategy
The Numbers Are in — and It’s Horrible News for the Gender Mafia
Jon Karl's Frequent Liar Miles, Martha Radatz Sees Trump Papal, and CNN ONLY...
Former Buffalo DA Claims Schools Cooperative, but Is He Trustworthy on This?
Reporter Exposes Dems' Politicizing: ICE Facility Tour Reveals Clean, Well-Equipped Center
Judge Greenlights Trump Policy: Allows IRS to Share Tax Data with ICE to...
Homan Says Newark Mayor Arrested for ‘Storming’ ICE Facility ‘Not Very Smart’
DHS Launches Investigation Into California Over Providing Benefits to Illegal Aliens
Newly Released Hostage Sends a Special Message to President Trump
Trump Slams Big Pharma Over $1,300 'Fat Shot': Says Americans Are Getting Ripped...
These Democrats Have Quite the Take on Trade Deal With China
Illegal Alien Criminals and Child Predators Next in Crackdown, FBI Deputy Director Bongino...
Trump Must Bury Biden's Subsidies for Russian and Chinese Minerals
Tipsheet

Supreme Court Delivers a Win for Religious Liberty in Case Against Gavin Newsom

AP Photo/Mark Tenally

The Supreme Court ruled late on Friday night that California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) does not have the power to restrict at-home prayer meetings on account of COVID, in a huge win for religious liberty. In a 5-4 ruling, the court concluded that Newsom did not have the power to restrict the rights of those practicing religion, while allowing secular activities to resume.

Advertisement

Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett argued that Newsom’s edicts are discriminatory toward religious practice.

“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 restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time,” they wrote.

The conservative justices pointed out that the Ninth Circuit, where an appeal is pending, did not conclude that secular activities “pose a lesser risk of transmission than applicants’ proposed religious exercise at home.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor sided with Newsom’s restrictive order. Kagan argued that secular and at-home religious activities need not be treated equally as far as restrictions go.

Advertisement

“California limits religious gatherings in homes to three households. If the State also limits all secular gatherings in homes to three households, it has complied with the First Amendment. And the State does exactly that: It has adopted a blanket restriction on athome gatherings of all kinds, religious and secular alike. California need not, as the per curiam insists, treat at-home religious gatherings the same as hardware stores and hair salons—and thus unlike at-home secular gatherings, the obvious comparator here,” she wrote in her dissent.

The court’s ruling delivered another loss to Newsom, who is currently embattled in a recall effort.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement