Quote
AlbaNY_Ram
Neither of those articles have anything to do with SCOTUS precedent. I bet both of those rulings get overturned.

Both judges are elected officials (as opposed to other judges who are appointed for life). What are the odds that they are merely pandering to their constituents in order to get re-elected ( as opposed to actually upholding the law as the SCOTUS has already determined)?

State restrictions have already gone before lower federal courts. They had to do with churches meeting during restricted lockdowns. Different courts ruled someone differently and it depended on how the issue was framed. Restrictions directly aimed at churches without broad applicability were not upheld. General restrictions of gatherings were upheld as applied even to churches if they were worded generally and applied to secular and non-secular activities equally.

The relevant SC case is Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905). It states that the court recognizes "the authority of a State to enact quarantine laws and ‘health laws of every description’ . . . to safeguard the public health and the public safety.”

[www.jdsupra.com]

I won't get into stuff about states using the pandemic to restrict access to abortions.

....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2020 04:45PM by zn.