Podcast appearances and mentions of Brooklyn V Cuomo

By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court recently granted a preliminary injunction against New York’s restrictions on church gatherings during the continuing Covid epidemic. In this episode, we discuss the case, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, and explore its implications for similar cases pending at the Court. We also ask why these… The post Legal Spirits Episode 030: Supreme Court Blocks NY’s Covid Restrictions on Churches appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

On November 25, 2020, the Supreme Court barred New York Governor Andrew Cuomo from enforcing Executive Order 202.68’s 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on religious services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Application for injunctive relief was granted in the per curiam opinion. Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Kagan. Eric Rassbach joins us to discuss the case and its implications.Featuring: -- Eric Rassbach, Vice President & Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), the Supreme Court recently granted a preliminary injunction against (i.e. temporarily blocked) New York’s COVID-19 restrictions on attendance at houses of worship (pending further litigation), siding with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two orthodox Jewish synagogues, who argued that the restrictions violated the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. Constitutional law experts Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School and David French of The Dispatch join host Jeffrey Rosen to unpack the decision, the restrictions at issue, and broader questions including: Has the Supreme Court become more open to claims of religious discrimination? And, in the context of the ongoing pandemic, does and should the Supreme Court still apply its usual judicial tests to determine if something is constitutional? They also explain the role of prior cases crucial to understanding the modern debate in the area of religious freedom law—from Employment Division v. Smith to Masterpiece Cakeshop and beyond. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), the Supreme Court recently granted a preliminary injunction against (i.e. temporarily blocked) New York’s COVID-19 restrictions on attendance at houses of worship (pending further litigation), siding with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two orthodox Jewish synagogues, who argued that the restrictions violated the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. Constitutional law experts Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School and David French of The Dispatch join host Jeffrey Rosen to unpack the decision, the restrictions at issue, and broader questions including: Has the Supreme Court become more open to claims of religious discrimination? And, in the context of the ongoing pandemic, does and should the Supreme Court still apply its usual judicial tests to determine if something is constitutional? They also explain the role of prior cases crucial to understanding the modern debate in the area of religious freedom law—from Employment Division v. Smith to Masterpiece Cakeshop and beyond. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The hosts discuss Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, a recent case about COVID-19-related restrictions on religious gatherings. In it, the Supreme Court struck down hard capacity caps on religious gatherings in high-risk areas. The case has already spawned more challenges to pandemic-related restrictions on religious gatherings and likely foreshadows the expansion of legal exemptions for religious groups.Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We discuss the history of religious freedom in light of the Supreme Court’s recent “free exercise” ruling in favor of NYC churches and synagogues. Christian college professors Matt Parks and David Corbin explore the ideas behind today's headlines.Part 1 (1:51): Headlines - We discuss the Supreme Court’s recent decision setting aside Covid-related restrictions on attendance at religious assemblies in New York City in the broader context of the constitutional theory and practice of First Amendment protections of the “free exercise” of religion. Links: NYT report on Supreme Court “free exercise” decision; Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo; CNN report on Supreme Court California church decision; Andrew McCarthy at The Hill; Lawrence Tribe and Michael Dorf at USA Today; Michael McConnell and Max Raskin in the New York Times; Obergefell v. Hodges.  Part 2 (25:17): Required Reading - Professor Corbin discusses the history of the “free exercise” of religion in Britain, colonial America, and the American founding era. Links: Westminster Confession (1647 edition); Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan; The Adopting Act of 1729 of the Synod of Philadelphia; Westminster Confession revisions of 1788; Resolution of the 1st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the USA and George Washington’s response; James Madison’s original religious liberty proposal.   Part 3 (43:12): Open the Grade Book - We grade three Christmas season traditions: the live Christmas tree, Christmas cards, and outdoor lights and displays.Part 3 (50:50): Tocqueville's Crystal Ball - Unfortunately, the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree as the Corbin kids went 1-4 with their sports picks last week, leaving Dave’s cumulative record at 16-34. Matt went 4-1 and is now 28-22 overall. In a desperation move, Dave adopted the Costanza rule this week, going with the opposite of his judgment on each pick: Texas A & M at Auburn (CFB), BYU at Coastal Carolina (CFB), Washington Football Team at Pittsburgh Steelers (NFL), Buffalo Bills at San Francisco 49ers (NFL), Gonzaga v. Baylor (NCAAB). Link: Seinfeld clip.   Opening and closing music is from the beginning of "Happy Life" by Ryan Andersen from his 2018 album, Americana volume 1. Available here. Licensed by Creative Commons.Matt Parks is an Associate Professor of Politics at The King’s College in New York City. David Corbin is a Professor of Politics and the Vice President of Academic Affairs at Providence Christian College in Pasadena, California. All views expressed in this podcast are their own.

In a ruling late in the night, the day before Thanksgiving, the Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction against Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, preventing him from imposing restrictions on how many people could attend houses of worship—restrictions that Governor Cuomo defended as necessary to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. In a lawsuit brought by a Catholic Diocese and an organization of Orthodox Jews, a majority of the Court held that the occupancy restrictions had a high likelihood of violating the free exercise of religion as protected by the First Amendment. To help explain that decision and to discuss its implications for future public health responses to COVID, Alan Rozenshtein spoke with law professors Lindsay Wiley of American University and Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued Covid restrictions that appeared before the Supreme Court in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. This case dealt with attendance restrictions for churches compared to the restrictions imposed on other businesses in relation to the Coronavirus pandemic. Joel Oster and Mackenzie Smith discuss the grounds of the restrictions, where Cuomo went wrong, and Covid fatigue. This episode gives an overview of recent Supreme Court rulings, election lawsuits, and debriefs a federal lawsuit against "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" star Erika Jayne's husband.  

Friend of the show Randall Eliason wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post called "The case against indicting Trump." Both of us on the show strongly disagree with the arguments presented and humbly submit our enthusiastic rebuke of it. Before that, Andrew answers the clickbaity question of whether or not Trump made a major mistake in pardoning Flynn. As with all clickbait, the answer is no. Finally, we briefly touch on the terrible new decision out of the Amy Coney Barrett era that is our new hell. Links: Last election nail, Biden hopes to avoid divisive Trump investigations, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses Seventh Edition May 2007, REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE, 20A87 Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (11/25/2020)

I interview Tim Ward, co-author (along with Gleb Tsipursky) of Pro Truth: A Practical Plan for Putting Truth Back Into Politics. We talk about the Pro-Truth Pledge, a tool to enable politicians, government officials, public personalities, and even regular citizens in sharing, honoring, and encouraging the truth as a central foundation for political discourse.  For more about the Pro-Truth Movement, visit ProTruthPledge.org. For more about Tim and his work visit ChangemakersBooks.com. To buy a copy of Pro Truth for yourself, click here. Plus: The newly conservative-controlled Supreme Court has issued "injunctive relief" against an executive order (issued by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo) that sought to restrict the number of attendees at religious services in certain zones identified as pandemic hotspots. In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, the Court agreed with the church's argument that restrictions applying uniquely to religious meetings violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. (Nevermind, as pointed out by Chief Justice John Roberts in his dissent, that Cuomo had already altered his executive order so that the zone restrictions no longer apply.) Justice Stephen Breyer also dissented, insisting that governors should be given considerable latitude to act during times of public emergency. In any case, this ruling is surely a harbinger of how a SCOTUS now dominated by Trump appointees will rule favorably on behalf of religious conservatives. Theme music courtesy of Body Found. Follow American Freethought on the intertubes: Website: AmericanFreethought.com  Twitter: @AMERFREETHOUGHT Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/21523473365/ Libsyn Classic Feed: https://americanfreethought.libsyn.com/rss Contact: john@americanfreethought.com Support the Podcast: PayPal funds to sniderishere@gmail.com

The issue in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo was whether a governor's order about maximum gathering size unfairly restricted religious liberty; by a 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court found that it likely did. The reasoning of the Court, and the concurring and dissenting Justices, suggests ways that the Court may examine future cases about COVID restrictions. It also shows the immediate impact that Justice Barrett's appointment has had on the Court, particularly on the issue of protecting religious liberty.

Grant of relief, enjoining NY Gov Cuomo from enforcing restrictions on religious gatherings. Support the show (https://paypal.me/SCOTUSsyllabus)