California Keeping Synagogues Closed: Constitutional or Not?
We’re venturing a little outside the usual topics of Los Angeles area car accidents and personal injury matters to discuss a significant contemporary case this week.
As California grapples with how to reopen following Covid19, a new frontier is developing within the framework of Constitutional law. The question is, when “essential” businesses are allowed to reopen, is it unconstitutional to prohibit synagogues and churches from reopening too?
This controversial issue arouses strong opinions among the public. It was also the subject of South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newsom, decided by the Ninth Circuit last week.
The Court’s decision was short and succinct. In the Court’s own words: “We’re dealing here with a highly contagious and often fatal disease for which there presently is no known cure. In the words of Justice Robert Jackson, if a court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” Using this logic, the Court ruled 2-1 that California has the power to restrict synagogues and churches from reopening, and doing so does not violate the constitution. It is a facially neutral law not targeted towards keeping religious services closed. Rather, places where many people gather are prohibited from opening up until Phase 3 of Governor’s Newsom’s plan.
The 2-1 ruling includes a blistering dissent from Judge Collins, a recent appointee of President Trump. Judge Collins points out that “warehousing and manufacturing facilities are categorically permitted to open, so long as they follow specified guidelines. But in-person “religious services”- merely because they are “religious services” are categorically not permitted to take place even if they follow the same guidelines.”
The Judge writes further, “[b]y explicitly and categorically assigning all in-person “religious services” to a future Phase 3—without any express regard to the number of attendees, the size of the space, or the safety protocols followed in such services—the State’s Reopening Plan undeniably discriminates on its face against religious conduct.”
Does it seem like the Government is favoring some businesses by calling them “essential”, and disfavoring religious venues just because they have religious importance? That seems to be what Judge Collins is pointing out in his dissent.
One thing is for sure: Covid19 is sure to carve out new areas of law in American Constitutional jurisprudence in courts throughout the country.
We’d love to hear your thoughts. And as always, for questions about your Los Angeles personal injury case, the Rabbi Lawyer is ready to assist, 24/6.
