Sotomayor’s counter-opinions on Covid-19 decrees back to Supreme Court majority

In a Supreme Court ruling shortly before midnight on Thanksgiving, Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court, has launched another firing dispute – this time, he said, warning the Court of the dangers of New York State’s majority position on Covid-19 restrictions.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to block restrictions on religious services imposed by Governor Andrew Cuomo to combat the spread of the coronavirus. The majority found that the Cuomo’s restrictions violated the First Amendment’s free protection of religious practice. These restrictions have determined that the number of worshipers of religious worship may be limited depending on the rate of infections. Judge Neil Gorsuch agreed that he actually wrote that it was unconstitutional for laws to regulate churches and synagogues while allowing beverage stores and bicycle shops to reopen.

Sotomayor, the nation’s only Latin supreme court judge and native New York man, was not.

“Free religious practice is one of our most valuable and jealously preserved constitutional rights. States cannot discriminate against religious institutions, even if they face a deadly crisis like this. “- written by. – But these restrictions are not at stake today.

In her dissenting opinion, joined by Judge Elena Kagan, she wrote: “Court judges are playing a deadly game in the second guesswork of health officials’ expert opinion on environments where an infectious virus infects one million Americans. week is the easiest to spread. The Court rejected similar measures in California and Nevada earlier this year and saw no reason to change it ostensibly. He noted that the Court’s ruling “only exacerbates the suffering of the Nation”.

As the Court shifted to the right, Sotomayor emerged as a strong, progressive voice. It set out what it saw as an misconduct by the Trump administration and what the Court itself considered to be misconduct.

In his disagreement on the Covid-19 restriction case, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Sotomayor sought to compare Gorsuch’s liquor stores and bicycle shops with religious institutions in New York. In the latter locations, he reasoned, people do not gather for more than an hour to sing and talk to each other.

Sotomayor dismissed allegations that Governor Cuomo made anti-religious statements, which would mean that his coronavirus orders would be closely monitored by the Court. A few years ago, he pointed out, the Court rejected an assessment of President Trump’s remarks and remarks on the so-called “Muslim ban,” which restricted immigration from Muslim-majority countries. In its opinion on the DACA case earlier this year, it also noted that the majority did not attach weight to Trump’s (Mexican-related) comments in this decision either.

The Court’s ruling on the Covid-19 restrictions is important because it has far-reaching consequences for other states and municipalities that may try to restrict participation in major events such as religious services. Sotomayor’s dissent can be seen as a strong feedback from the Conservative majority of the Court; mentioned in a footnote that, ‘ironically’, the applicant’s diocese is no longer subject to the Cuomo’s participation ceiling due to the success of the public health measures in New York.

The coronavirus has killed more than 260,000 Americans since the end of February. Most people died in New York, New Jersey, California, Texas and Florida – and they are all states with significant Latin populations.

Sotomayor made it clear that he considered Cuomo Covid-19’s measures to be reasonable and legally justified.

“The Constitution does not prohibit states from responding to public health crises with rules that treat religious institutions the same or more favorably than similar secular institutions,” Sotomayor wrote, “especially when these ordinances save lives.”

Follow NBC Latino on Facebook Twitter and Instagram.