Yesterday CNS News posted an article about the recent Supreme Court case regarding restrictions on religious gatherings in New York State.
The article notes:
The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling on Wednesday imposing an injunction on an order issued by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York that limited the people who could enter a church or a synagogue—but not a liquor store—in areas of the state that he declared “orange” or “red zones” because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the Agudath Israel of America had filed suit against Cuomo arguing that he was violating their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to issue an injunction preventing enforcement of Cuomo’s order while the case is being litigated.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted for the injunction. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer voted to deny the injunction.
The following statement by Justice Roberts caught my attention:
Chief Justice Roberts argued against he injunction because he said that Cuomo is not enforcing his order at this precise moment.
“Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive,” Robert conceded. “And it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause. It is not necessary, however, for us to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time. The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not.”
So what Justice Roberts is saying is that the law may be unconstitutional, but he doesn’t want to take a stand on that right now. Sir, you took a sworn oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Are you going to do that?