FREEDOM WINS IN COURT
February 8th, 2021
From Michigan to Germany, courts are beginning to rule in favor of constitutional freedoms infringed by worldwide lockdowns. But will we ever see the Draconian leaders responsible for these infringements face the music?
Michigan Supreme Court Confirms Whitmer’s Orders Are Out
October 13, 2020
CBS Detroit – After the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Governor Whitmer’s executive orders were unconstitutional under the 1945 Emergency Powers Act, the Governor appealed for clarification that she had a transition window until October 30 to work with the legislature before the court’s orders took effect.
Now Michigan’s highest court has spoken again and as reported by The Detroit News, ruled in a 6-1 decision that the orders had an immediate effect and denied her time to develop further legislation. …
The initial decision by the court ruled the 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act was unconstitutional and “are of no continuing legal effect.” The 4-3 decision by Justices Markman, Zahra, Viviano, and Clement who represented the majority said the 1945 law gave legislative authority to the governor’s office.
Immediately after the October 2 ruling, the governor reissued mask and public gathering orders through the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services under state health statutes already on the books.
“I had a real honest conversation with the people in our state. I told them I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of our state of South Dakota. I took an oath when I was in congress, obviously to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I believe in our freedoms and liberties. What I’ve seen across the country is so many people give up their liberties for just a little bit of security, and they don’t have to do that. If a leader will take too much power in a time of crisis, that is how we lose our country.” – Governor Kristi Noem, South Dakota
Gov. Noem Discusses COVID-19 on The Ingraham Angle
“Here’s my apology video to Facebook after they threatened to ban me for violating their community guidelines. With censorship, fact checkers, and the threat to be deplatformed, I now realize that speaking truth and empowering people is a direct violation of their community guidelines. I couldn’t be more sorry.”
Justice Gorsuch: Government not free to disregard free exercise of religion during Covid crisis
November 27, 2020
The following is a full text of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurring opinion in ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK v. ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, in which the court struck down the governor’s Covid restrictions targeting church services
Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis. At a minimum, that Amendment prohibits government officials from treating religious exercises worse than comparable secular activities, unless they are pursuing a compelling interest and using the least restrictive means available. See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 546 (1993). Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.
Today’s case supplies just the latest example. New York’s Governor has asserted the power to assign different color codes to different parts of the State and govern each by executive decree. In “red zones,” houses of worship are all but closed—limited to a maximum of 10 people. In the Orthodox Jewish community that limit might operate to exclude all women, considering 10 men are necessary to establish a minyan, or a quorum.
At the same time, the Governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “essential.” And it turns out the businesses the Governor considers essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are all essential too. So, at least according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians.In “orange zones,” it’s not much different. Churches and synagogues are limited to a maximum of 25 people. These restrictions apply even to the largest cathedrals and synagogues, which ordinarily hold hundreds. And the restrictions apply no matter the precautions taken, including social distancing, wearing masks, leaving doors and windows open, forgoing singing, and disinfecting spaces between services.
Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?
As almost everyone on the Court today recognizes, squaring the Governor’s edicts with our traditional First Amendment rules is no easy task. People may gather inside for extended periods in bus stations and airports, in laundromats and banks, in hardware stores and liquor shops. No apparent reason exists why people may not gather, subject to identical restrictions, in churches or synagogues, especially when religious institutions have made plain that they stand ready, able, and willing to follow all the safety precautions required of “essential” businesses and perhaps more besides.
The only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as “essential” as what happens in secular spaces. Indeed, the Governor is remarkably frank about this: In his judgment laundry and liquor, travel and tools, are all “essential” while traditional religious exercises are not. That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids.
Nor is the problem an isolated one. In recent months, certain other Governors have issued similar edicts. At the flick of a pen, they have asserted the right to privilege restaurants, marijuana dispensaries, and casinos over churches, mosques, and temples. See Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting).
In far too many places, for far too long, our first freedom has fallen on deaf ears.
What could justify so radical a departure from the First Amendment’s terms and long-settled rules about its application? Our colleagues offer two possible answers. Initially, some point to a solo concurrence in South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___ (2020), in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE expressed willingness to defer to executive orders in the pandemic’s early stages based on the newness of the emergency and how little was then known about the disease. Post, at 5 (opinion of BREYER, J.). At that time, COVID had been with us, in earnest, for just three months. Now, as we round out 2020 and face the prospect of entering a second calendar year living in the pandemic’s shadow, that rationale has expired according to its own terms.
Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical. Rather than apply a nonbinding and expired concurrence from South Bay, courts must resume applying the Free Exercise Clause. Today, a majority of the Court makes this plain. Not only did the South Bay concurrence address different circumstances than we now face, that opinion was mistaken from the start.
To justify its result, the concurrence reached back 100 years in the U. S. Reports to grab hold of our decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905). But Jacobson hardly supports cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic. That decision involved an entirely different mode of analysis, an entirely different right, and an entirely different kind of restriction.
Start with the mode of analysis. Although Jacobson predated the modern tiers of scrutiny, this Court essentially applied rational basis review to Henning Jacobson’s challenge to a state law that, in light of an ongoing smallpox pandemic, required individuals to take a vaccine, pay a $5 fine, or establish that they qualified for an exemption. Id., at 25 (asking whether the State’s scheme was “reasonable”); id., at 27 (same); id., at 28 (same). Rational basis review is the test this Court normally applies to Fourteenth Amendment challenges, so long as they do not involve suspect classifications based on race or some other ground, or a claim of fundamental right.
Put differently, Jacobson didn’t seek to depart from normal legal rules during a pandemic, and it supplies no precedent for doing so. Instead, Jacobson applied what would become the traditional legal test associated with the right at issue—exactly what the Court does today. Here, that means strict scrutiny: The First Amendment traditionally requires a State to treat religious exercises at least as well as comparable secular activities unless it can meet the demands of strict scrutiny—showing it has employed the most narrowly tailored means available to satisfy a compelling state interest. Church of Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 546.
Next, consider the right asserted. Mr. Jacobson claimed that he possessed an implied “substantive due process” right to “bodily integrity” that emanated from the Fourteenth Amendment and allowed him to avoid not only the vaccine but also the $5 fine (about $140 today) and the need to show he qualified for an exemption. 197 U. S., at 13–14. This Court disagreed. But what does that have to do with our circumstances? Even if judges may impose emergency restrictions on rights that some of them have found hiding in the Constitution’s penumbras, it does not follow that the same fate should befall the textually explicit right to religious exercise.
Finally, consider the different nature of the restriction. In Jacobson, individuals could accept the vaccine, pay the fine, or identify a basis for exemption. Id., at 12, 14. The imposition on Mr. Jacobson’s claimed right to bodily integrity, thus, was avoidable and relatively modest. It easily survived rational basis review, and might even have survived strict scrutiny, given the opt-outs available to certain objectors. Id., at 36, 38–39.
Here, by contrast, the State has effectively sought to ban all traditional forms of worship in affected “zones” whenever the Governor decrees and for as long as he chooses. Nothing in Jacobson purported to address, let alone approve, such serious and long-lasting intrusions into settled constitutional rights. In fact, Jacobson explained that the challenged law survived only because it did not “contravene the Constitution of the United States” or “infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument.” Id., at 25.
Tellingly no Justice now disputes any of these points. Nor does any Justice seek to explain why anything other than our usual constitutional standards should apply during the current pandemic.
In fact, today the author of the South Bay concurrence even downplays the relevance of Jacobson for cases like the one before us. Post, at 2 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.). All this is surely a welcome development. But it would require a serious rewriting of history to suggest, as THE CHIEF JUSTICE does, that the South Bay concurrence never really relied in significant measure on Jacobson. That was the first case South Bay cited on the substantive legal question before the Court, it was the only case cited involving a pandemic, and many lower courts quite understandably read its invocation as inviting them to slacken their enforcement of constitutional liberties while COVID lingers. See, e.g., Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, 962 F. 3d 341, 347 (CA7 2020); Legacy Church, Inc. v. Kunkel, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___ (NM 2020).
Why have some mistaken this Court’s modest decision in Jacobson for a towering authority that overshadows the Constitution during a pandemic? In the end, I can only surmise that much of the answer lies in a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis. But if that impulse may be understandable or even admirable in other circumstances, we may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well when we do.
That leaves my colleagues to their second line of argument. Maybe precedent does not support the Governor’s actions. Maybe those actions do violate the Constitution. But, they say, we should stay our hand all the same. Even if the churches and synagogues before us have been subject to unconstitutional restrictions for months, it is no matter because, just the other day, the Governor changed his color code for Brooklyn and Queens where the plaintiffs are located. Now those regions are “yellow zones” and the challenged restrictions on worship associated with “orange” and “red zones” do not apply. So, the reasoning goes, we should send the plaintiffs home with an invitation to return later if need be.
To my mind, this reply only advances the case for intervention. It has taken weeks for the plaintiffs to work their way through the judicial system and bring their case to us. During all this time, they were subject to unconstitutional restrictions. Now, just as this Court was preparing to act on their applications, the Governor loosened his restrictions, all while continuing to assert the power to tighten them again anytime as conditions warrant. So if we dismissed this case, nothing would prevent the Governor from reinstating the challenged restrictions tomorrow. And by the time a new challenge might work its way to us, he could just change them again.
The Governor has fought this case at every step of the way. To turn away religious leaders bringing meritorious claims just because the Governor decided to hit the “off ” switch in the shadow of our review would be, in my view, just another sacrifice of fundamental rights in the name of judicial modesty. Even our dissenting colleagues do not suggest this case is moot or otherwise outside our power to decide. They counsel delay only because “the disease-related circumstances [are] rapidly changing.” Post, at 5 (opinion of BREYER, J.).
But look at what those “rapidly changing” circumstances suggest. Both Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio have “indicated it’s only a matter of time before [all] five boroughs” of New York City are flipped from yellow to orange. J. Skolnik, D. Goldiner, & D. Slattery, Staten Island Goes ‘Orange’ As Cuomo Urges Coronavirus ‘Reality Check’ Ahead of Thanksgiving, N. Y. Daily News (Nov. 23, 2020), https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronaviruscuomo-thanksgiving-20201123-yyhxfo3kzbdinbfbsqos3tvrk u-story-html.
On anyone’s account, then, it seems inevitable this dispute will require the Court’s attention. It is easy enough to say it would be a small thing to require the parties to “refile their applications” later. Post, at 3 (opinion of BREYER, J.). But none of us are rabbis wondering whether future services will be disrupted as the High Holy Days were, or priests preparing for Christmas. Nor may we discount the burden on the faithful who have lived for months under New York’s unconstitutional regime unable to attend religious services.
Whether this Court could decide a renewed application promptly is beside the point. The parties before us have already shown their entitlement to relief. Saying so now will establish clear legal rules and enable both sides to put their energy to productive use, rather than devoting it to endless emergency litigation. Saying so now will dispel, as well, misconceptions about the role of the Constitution in times of crisis, which have already been permitted to persist for too long. 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.
Quotes I transcribed:
8:30 “We took a unique path. We did not lock people up. We did not close any businesses…. I didn’t even define what an essential business was, because I don’t believe that I have the authority to tell you your business isn’t essential.”
9:00 “In return, the mainstream media spent countless hours and endless column inches in their papers attacking me for it. And frankly, that’s the only reason that I’m in the nation spotlight today. Liberals … have been literally kicking me in the head every night on national TV for the decisions that I’ve made for South Dakota. Rachael Maddow, Elizabeth Warren….”
“The vast majority of South Dakotans have thanked me.”
21:00 “I also consulted with attorneys who specifically focus on Constitutional authority. I wanted to know what authority did I have that the U.S. Constitution gives me, because I have taken the oath to uphold that Constitution. And I wanted to know what the Constitution of the state of South Dakota told me my authority was and what it wasn’t.”
26:30 “I’m a Christian, and I believe people are attracted to us because they want more of what we have.”
27:20 Forgiving the haters: “I had a pastor tell me one time: ‘Kristi, people are going to throw out offenses all the time. You’re the one who decides if you’re going to pick them up and carry them around. Then you’re the one carrying the burden, so who’s losing in that situation.’ I think that’s true. People are going to offend us all the time, and we need to just decide we’re going to let it lay, walk by it and just go on and be happy, and understand that what we have is special.”
She invites those who appreciate freedom to move to South Dakota!
Continue reading “Gov. Kristi Noem: Liberty and the Pandemic – “We took a unique path. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I don’t have the authority to tell you your business isn’t essential””
New makeup of U.S. Supreme Court values the Constitution, and so the City of Anchorage relaxed its stranglehold on church gatherings, says Kate Vogel, the Municipal Attorney. Dec. 8, 2020, Anchorage Assembly meeting.
Disappointedly, the Constitution isn’t discussed much at all, but interesting points made, especially this quote!:
1:08:35 John Hinderaker: A survey shows that the average person thinks 9% of people have died from covid. If that were to be true, we would all personally know many who have died from covid, which isn’t true. In reality, only a tiny fraction of 1% have died from covid:
“I mentioned there is this survey in which the average answer that Americans gave to ‘what percentage of our population has died from covid,’ the average answer is 9%. If 9% of the people in this country died from covid, your relatives, your friends, your neighbors, your coworkers, people who go to your church, they would all be dropping like flies.
How a person can simultaneously say ‘I don’t know anybody who’s died from Covid…,’ but then when asked that question, ‘I think 9% of the population has died,’ I don’t know how anybody could possibly believe that.
There used to be such a thing as common sense, based upon a person’s own experience. If somebody came along and tried to sell a line of B.S., the average person would test that proposition against his experience and his observation and he might say ‘I don’t think so. That’s not the way I see it. That hasn’t been my experience.’ It seems as if that’s just gone. Now it’s the guys in the white coats, headlines, something we heard on cable news. And there are many people who have seemed to obtain this ability to internalize those things without checking it against their own common sense, which I think if very dangerous.”
Panel: “The Coronavirus and the Constitution”
Chairman: Ronald J. Pestritto
“Is Freedom of Assembly Dead?”
Robert Barnes | Barnes Law, LLP
“The Failure of Expertise”
Alex Berenson | Author and Journalist
“The Politics of the Coronavirus”
John Hinderaker | Powerline
After over 7 months of violating the constitution by exploiting the current State of Emergency in California, Governor Gavin Newsom lost a lawsuit this week for his abuse of the executive order. The Judge issued a temporary injunction on his power of executive order. Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, who was one of the Legislators to file the winning lawsuit, came on the show to detail the important win for freedom in California.
“The Judge found good cause to issue a permanent injunction restraining the Governor from issuing further *unconstitutional* orders.”
The long list of demands from the Government of California is read by #JohnMacArthur during a Grace Community Church service held September 13, 2020, after a Judge ruled that Grace Church, specifically, could only have “services” outdoors (in the 100+ degree heat, with the ashes of nearby wildfires raining down, in a parking lot, that is owned by the State, a lease that the State has recently revoked). These demands are supposed to be related to #COVID19 but ultimately Christians and Constitutionalists know that #ChurchIsEssential
Now I know for sure that Mayor Berkowitz also swore to defend the U.S. Constitution, which he violated with his tyrannical covid mandates, some of which still stand.
Accompanied by her ‘wife,’ Austin Quinn-Davidson swears to uphold the U.S. and Alaska Constitutions as well as the Anchorage Charter.
Quinn-Davidson was appointed by the Anchorage Assembly after Mayor Ethan Berkowitz stepped down because of scandal.
“She is joined by her wife, Dr. Stephanie Quinn-Davidson.”
Austin Quinn-Davidson, right hand raised: “I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the state of Alaska and the Charter of the municipality of Anchorage.
“So help me God” at the end was replaced with “congratulations.”
The ‘new normal’ may become illegal! ❤
“A BLOCKBUSTER lawsuit has been filed in OH by Atty Thomas Renz– and coming soon to CA as well!
World Affairs Brief, September 25, 2020 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.
Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com).
Supreme Court Nominee Becomes Election Focus
Trump has been talked into presenting a woman nominee, which appears politically astute, but it isn’t. It is a trap, and so is the notion of a “conservative” woman justice. Most of the women placed on the appellate level are there because a governor or president is playing politically correct. They will always be mainstream at best, or liberals—never real strict constructionists.
Take Trump’s top probable pick, Justice Amy Barrett of the 7th District Federal Appeals Court. Trump has been told she is a devout Catholic who holds a strong pro-life stance. Of course, the Democrats will, like all nominees, get them to commit during the review process to not try and overturn the Supreme Court conjured right to an abortion. She will call it “settled law” like every other “conservative” justice, implying that she will not try and overturn it. So forget about the hope of killing abortion. It is not going to happen.
But in every other way, Barrett will be a disappointment to conservatives. As Big League Politics wrote,
Barrett’s record is troubling on many issues, with a ruling that gives Democrats in Illinois blanket authority to shut down society based on COVID-19 mass hysteria standing out as particularly heinous. Barrett concurred with the majority in Illinois Republican Party et al. v. J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois to keep the illegal lockdown in place and allow Democrats to rip up the Constitution under the guise of safety. She hid behind the precedent of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905) in an attempt to avoid culpability for her decision.
But Robert Barnes, a lawyer who files cases in the 7TH circuit court of Justice Barrett, wrote this note of extreme caution:
Barrett sided with the government on almost every civil rights case, every big employer case, every criminal case, while also siding with the government on the lockdowns, on uncompensated takings, on excusing First Amendment infringements & Fourth Amendment violations. Continue reading “Skousen: Justice Amy Barrett will be a disappointment to conservatives — Barnes: “Barrett sided with the government on almost every civil rights case, big employer case, criminal case, the lockdowns, uncompensated takings, excusing 1st & 4th Amendment violations””
Federal judge rules Gov. Wolf’s shutdown orders were unconstitutional
September 14, 2020
A federal judge in Pittsburgh on Monday ruled that orders issued by Gov. Tom Wolf restricting the size of gatherings and closing nonessential businesses to protect against the spread of covid-19 were unconstitutional. …
U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV wrote in his 66-page opinion that, even though the actions taken in the spring by Wolf and Health Secretary Rachel Levine were laudable, they violated the First Amendment right to freedom of assembly, and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.
Powerful, 6-min film about our protest last night in Anchorage! Our state senator, Lora Reinbold exposes our mayor’s violations of the US Constitution, enabled by the city counsel. Young woman addresses Berkowitz shut down of churches as a violation of the First Amendment, freedom of religion.
Mini Documentary Anchorage Protest 2020 👉 Film Documentary Anchorage Protest 2020 Official Video
Ron Paul on Fox News Rundown podcast, 7/23/20:
“The governors should be told that it’s unconstitutional to forbid businesses from opening. Business should be allowed to open, and customers should be allowed to choose and make their own risks.”
“We’ve seen surges in coronaviruses in the midst of lockdown. New York had a lockdown and had 30,000 people die. New York had the worst death rate of any place in the world amid a lockdown so perhaps a lockdown didn’t do any good and perhaps a lockdown killed our economy, but didn’t do anything to stem the tide of the virus. So I see nothing to be admired in New York’s lockdown. I see a mountain of people who died, particularly in the nursing homes. I don’t think the lockdown did them any good. I think it killed the economy, but didn’t do any good for trying to contain the virus.”
“I think we’ve made a big mistake in the lockdown. We’ve crippled the economy.”