The difference a Justice makes

 It did not take long to see the importance of adding Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, sided with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox Jewish group, and granted a temporary injunction blocking the State of New York from restricting attendance at religious ceremonies as the State has been doing.  The Majority argued the religious groups were likely to succeed on the merits of their argument that the New York limitations impinged on the First Amendment right to exercise religion.  

Earlier this year, similar cases came before the Supreme Court where religious institutions asked that California and Nevada restrictions on church attendance be overturned.  In each case the Court decided, by a 5 to 4 vote, in favor of the State governments that the restrictions were not a violation of the First Amendment.

There were differences between the State restrictions in that the restrictions New York imposed were significantly more restrictive on religious institutions at times.  New York used a color coded scheme where areas with significant Covid cases were coded "Red." Areas next to those communities were coded "Orange," and communities a bit further out were "Yellow."  Attendance at religious institutions in areas coded Red or Orange was limited to a maximum of 10 and 25 persons, respectively.  

The key difference in the cases is the presence of Justice Amy Coney Barrett who replaced the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  That one vote swing made the difference in the Court defending the First Amendment right to exercise religion versus another decision siding with a State Government.*

Justice Coney Barrett was not the only Trump Appointee to the Supreme Court making an impact.  

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's second appointee to the Supreme Court, also played a role in this decision, writing his own Opinion concurring with the Majority Opinion.  Justice Kavanaugh's Concurring Opinion explains why New York's restrictions are significantly more extreme than those in previous cases and then takes on Chief Justice Robert's position that the Court could have declined to issue an injunction. 

But the real standout in this instance was Justice Neil Gorsuch, appointed by President Trump during his first year in office.  Gorsuch wrote a strong opinion** concurring with the Majority decision where he opened with the statement "Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis" and Justice Gorsuch closed with a powerful statement in defense of the First Amendment:

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. 

The three Justices appointed by President Trump will have a long lasting impact on the Court and our Country.  Not just because of how they vote but because of how they express themselves on the issues.  Opinions like Justice Gorsuch's will long be remembered for their forthright defense of our freedoms.

-----------------

*  Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion that would have been the Majority Opinion had Justice Ginsburg still been on the Court, or if Justice Coney Barrett had not been approved to the Court (the decision would have been 4 to 4, meaning Chief Justice Roberts' opinion would have ruled and the lower court rejection of the injunction would have stood).  Chief Justice Roberts' opinion argued that NY had changed the designations of the areas where the Plaintiffs were located from Red or Orange to Yellow, which allows much higher attendance at churches, synagogues and mosques.  Therefore, there was no need to grant an injunction since the plaintiffs were not under severe restrictions.  He suggested if NY changed the color of the zones the plaintiffs could resubmit their petition for an injunction.

You can go to the actual Opinions at:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf 

**Justice Gorsuch's opinion also ran through facts offered in the case in the lower courts debunking the Concurring Minority Opinion written by Justice Breyer who said the Court should sacrifice religious freedom at the alter of deference to public health officials.*** 

*** I may have exaggerated a teeny bit in describing Justice Breyer's opinion, allowing my bias to show.  If you want a less biased perspective read his opinion at the link above.