Supreme Court On Religious Freedom
PJM.
“Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their free exercise claim; they are irreparably harmed by the loss of free exercise rights ‘for even minimal periods of time’; andthe State has not shown that ‘public health would be imperiled’ by employing less restrictive measures,” the Supreme Court ruled. “Accordingly, applicants are entitled to an injunction pending appeal.”
[ … ]
… “even if the government withdraws or modifies a COVID restriction in the course of litigation, that does not necessarily moot the case. And so long as a case is not moot, litigants otherwise entitled to emergency injunctive relief remain entitled to such relief where the applicants ‘remain under a constant threat’ that government officials will use their power to reinstate the challenged restrictions.”
Whatever. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time. Any decision that doesn’t recognize the God-given right and duty of Christians to worship completely free from hindrance by the state is still weak.
The really interesting thing to me is this bit: ” … litigants otherwise entitled to emergency injunctive relief remain entitled to such relief where the applicants ‘remain under a constant threat’ that government officials will use their power to reinstate the challenged restrictions.”
And no, that wasn’t what the Supreme Court said when they dismissed the case of NY Rifle and Pistol Association against NY on the basis of removal of the restrictions on travel, thus making the claims moot.
Because rules are for little people, and consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
