华盛顿——最高法院告诉加州，它不能执行冠状病毒-限制家庭宗教礼拜的相关限制，包括圣经研究和祈祷会。
最高法院上周五晚些时候发布的命令是最近一系列案件中的最新一起，在这些案件中，高等法院禁止官员执行一些适用于宗教集会的与冠状病毒有关的限制。
五名保守派法官同意暂时取消加州适用于家庭宗教集会的限制，而法院的三名自由派和首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨不会这样做。
然而，加州已经宣布了重大变化，从4月15日起放松对集会的限制。这些变化是在该州感染率下降后出现的。
提交给法官的案件涉及加州的规定，即在该州的大部分地区，室内社交聚会不得超过三户。要求与会者戴口罩，并保持身体距离。不同的限制适用于学校、杂货店和教堂等场所。
法院的未签署命令称，“加州对待一些可比的世俗活动比在家宗教活动更有利”，允许发廊、零售店和电影院等地方“一次聚集三个以上的家庭”。下级法院“没有得出结论，认为这些活动比申请人提议的在家宗教活动造成的传播风险更小，”它说。
法院承认，加州关于集会的政策将于下周改变，但表示这些限制在此之前仍然存在，“有‘移动门柱’记录的官员保留随时恢复这些强化限制的权力。”
埃琳娜·卡根大法官为自己和她的自由派同事斯蒂芬·布雷耶大法官和索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官写了一份异议，称法院的多数派正在损害州官员向公众发表演讲的能力健康紧急情况。
“加州将家庭宗教集会限制在三户。如果国家还将所有家庭世俗聚会限制在三户，那么它就遵守了第一修正案。而国家正是这样做的:它对各种家庭聚会采取了全面的限制，无论是宗教还是世俗的。加州不需要...像对待五金店和发廊一样对待家庭宗教聚会，”她写道。她补充说，“法律没有要求国家平等对待苹果和西瓜。”
提交给法官的案件涉及旧金山湾区圣克拉拉县的两名居民，他们希望在家中举办小型的面对面圣经学习会议。在周六的一封电子邮件中，他们的律师瑞安·J·沃尔什(Ryan J. Walsh)说，他和他的同事为他们的客户“激动得说不出话来”。
加州为其限制社交聚会的政策辩护为“完全中立”
法院处理了一系列宗教团体质疑冠状病毒限制影响礼拜服务的案件。虽然在大流行早期，法院在宗教团体的反对上站在州政府官员一边，但随着自由派法官的去世，这种情况发生了变化鲁斯·巴德·金斯伯格去年九月，她的继任者是保守派大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特。
去年11月，高等法院禁止纽约在被指定为受病毒严重影响的地区对教堂和犹太教堂的出席人数实施某些限制。今年2月，高等法院告诉加州，由于冠状病毒大流行，它不能禁止室内教堂服务，尽管它现在允许禁止在室内唱歌和诵经。
High court halts Calif. virus rules limiting home worship
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court is telling California that it can’t enforcecoronavirus-related restrictions that have limited home-based religious worship including Bible studies and prayer meetings.
The order from the court late Friday is the latest in a recent string of cases in which the high court has barred officials from enforcing some coronavirus-related restrictions applying to religious gatherings.
Five conservative justices agreed that California restrictions that apply to in-home religious gatherings should be lifted for now, while the court's three liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts would not have done so.
California has already, however, announced significant changes loosening restrictions on gatherings that go into effect April 15. The changes come after infection rates have gone down in the state.
The case before the justices involved California rules that in most of the state limit indoor social gatherings to no more than three households. Attendees are required to wear masks and physically distance from one another. Different restrictions apply to places including schools, grocery stores and churches.
“California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise,” allowing hair salons, retail stores, and movie theaters, among other places, “to bring together more than three households at a time,” the unsigned order from the court said. A lower court “did not conclude that those activities pose a lesser risk of transmission than applicants’ proposed religious exercise at home,” it said.
The court acknowledged that California's policy on gatherings will change next week but said the restrictions remain in place until then and that “officials with a track record of 'moving the goalposts' retain authority to reinstate those heightened restrictions at any time.”
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent for herself and her liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, that the court's majority was hurting state officials' ability to address a publichealthemergency.
“California limits religious gatherings in homes to three households. If the State also limits all secular gatherings in homes to three households, it has complied with the First Amendment. And the State does exactly that: It has adopted a blanket restriction on at-home gatherings of all kinds, religious and secular alike. California need not ... treat at-home religious gatherings the same as hardware stores and hair salons,” she wrote. She added that "the law does not require that the State equally treat apples and watermelons."
The case before the justices involved two residents of Santa Clara County in the San Francisco Bay Area, who want to host small, in-person Bible study sessions in their homes. In an email message Saturday, one of their lawyers, Ryan J. Walsh, said he and his colleagues were “thrilled beyond words” for their clients.
California had defended its policy of restricting social gatherings as “entirely neutral."
The court has dealt with a string of cases in which religious groups have challenged coronavirus restrictions impacting worship services. While early in the pandemic the court sided with state officials over the objection of religious groups, that changed following the death of liberal JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburglast September and her replacement by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
In November, the high court barred New York from enforcing certain limits on attendance at churches and synagogues in areas designated as hard hit by the virus. And in February, the high court told California that it can’t bar indoor church services because of the coronavirus pandemic, though it let stand for now a ban on singing and chanting indoors.
