Connect with us

Featured

Court rules in favor of Jewish organization in case against Gov. Cuomo’s COVID-19 restrictions

Published

on

andrew cuomo

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on Monday that Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D-N.Y.) executive order limiting attendance at places of worship “discriminates against religion on its face” in Agudath Israel of America‘s case against the governor.

The organization, which was founded in 1922 to serve the American Orthodox Jewish community, launched its lawsuit after months of what it claimed was Gov. Cuomo’s targeting and ostracizing of Jewish communities during the COVID-19 outbreak.

The Yeshiva World first reported this ruling Monday afternoon.

Prior to Monday’s ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court had issued an injunction against the 10- and 25-person limitations ordered by the New York governor, pending Agudath Israel’s appeal.

On the last day of Hanukkah, December 18, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard Agudath Israel’s appeal. On top of challenging the 10- and 25-person limits, the case challenged the 25% and 33% capacity limits too.

The 25% and 33% limits on attendance at places of worship, the court ruled, are subject to strict scrutiny.

Regarding the Supreme Court’s injunction opinion, the Second Circuit believes that it “addressed only the fixed capacity limits, but the same reasoning applies to the Order’s percentage capacity limits, which by their own terms impose stringent requirements only on houses of worship. One could easily substitute the percentage capacity limits for the fixed capacity limits into the Supreme Court’s discussion of strict scrutiny without altering the analysis. Thus, both the fixed capacity and percentage capacity limits on houses of worship are subject to strict scrutiny.”

Moreover, the court noted that it applies strict scrutiny to determine if a government policy impermissibly “‘devalues religious reasons’ for congregating ‘by judging them to be of lesser import than nonreligious reasons.’”

Additionally, the court declared that Cuomo’s order was not religiously neutral.

“To determine neutrality, we begin with the [Order’s] text, ‘for the minimum requirement of neutrality is that a [government policy] not discriminate on its face,’” it stated. “The order fails this basic standard by explicitly imposing on ‘houses of worship’ restrictions inapplicable to secular activities.”

“The Court also found that Governor Cuomo’s Order was not generally applicable: the Governor has selected some businesses (such as news media, financial services, certain retail stores, and construction) for favorable treatment, calling them ‘essential,’ while imposing greater restrictions on ‘non-essential’ activities and religious worship,” the statement continues. “That lack of general applicability is also subject to strict scrutiny.”

While Cuomo has asserted that “all” activities unrestricted by the executive order show lesser risks of COVID-19 infection than religious ceremonies, the governor has never claimed that the unrestricted category of “essential” activities was created based on transmission risk, The Yeshiva World notes.

Rather than that, the court declared, “[t]he only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as ‘essential’ as what happens in secular spaces.”

Toward the end of the statement, the court expressed skepticism about Cuomo’s repeated comments trying to defend the restrictions on places of worship because of the special risk they presented.

“Recent public statements from the Governor cast some doubt on his experts’ claims that religious worship is self-evidently riskier than secular activities,” the court noted. “In an address on December 11, 2020, the Governor presented a chart showing that, per ‘Statewide Contact Tracing Data,’ ‘Religious Activities’ were the exposure source for only 0.69% of new COVID-19 infections in the state from September through November. This figure is comparable to, or lower than, the equivalent proportion for categories of activity deemed ‘essential’: 0.84% for ‘Manufacturing,’ 0.66% for ‘Construction,’ and 0.55% for ‘Professional Services.'”

The executive order in question dates back to October, when COVID-19 outbreaks were beginning crop up again in New York City, which had been the nation’s coronavirus epicenter back in the springtime when the pandemic began in the United States. Many of these outbreaks occurred in “red zones” that were mostly located in parts of Queens and Brooklyn, specifically in parts of the boroughs that had large Orthodox Jewish communities. Cuomo restricted the attendance in houses of worship in these red zones, which then prompted outrage and protest from Jews in New York, claiming their First Amendment rights were being violated.

Avi Schick, who represented the plaintiffs challenging Cuomo’s executive order, is reported by The Yeshiva World as saying “this decision has important ramifications that go way beyond COVID restriction. It is a clear statement from the Second Circuit that government can’t disfavor religion merely because they see no value in it. I expect that this decision will stop future governments from imposing rules that restrict religion, and also sets a standard that we can rely on in court in those instances when government does not heed that lesson.”

Gov. Cuomo’s office did not respond to this reporter’s request for an immediate comment on the ruling.

RELATED: Gov. Cuomo’s office: ‘We’ve been sued virtually every day’ over COVID-19 actions

RELATED: ‘Dangerous and divisive’: NY Officials slam Gov. Cuomo for singling out Jews in new COVID-19 orders

RELATED: McEnany slams Gov. Cuomo on religious gatherings, other high-profile Dems for violating COVID-19 guidelines

RELATED: Gov. Cuomo: ‘the issue’ of recent COVID-19 outbreaks ‘is with that ultra-orthodox community’

You can follow Douglas Braff on Twitter @Douglas_P_Braff.

You may like

Continue Reading

Featured

Shanghai: China’s Potemkin Village

Published

on

Screen Shot 2021 01 08 at 11.55.24 AM

Following a recent outbreak of COVID-19, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has imposed a month-long draconian lockdown on the residents of Shanghai. The CCP has used the outbreak to persecute its own citizens, including through forced evictions and quarantines, and placing alarms on doors to prevent COVID-19 people from leaving their homes. The harsh measures have resulted in food and healthcare shortages and separation of families.

But of course, we wouldn’t know that by reading the CCP-run press readily available in the United States. Instead of presenting the facts, the CCP engages in a comprehensive propaganda campaign that props up Shanghai as a Chinese Potemkin village. The CCP media asserts that China’s actions in Shanghai are benevolent and wise, while Western criticism is a product of malice. Chinese state-run media also insists that the Shanghai lockdown promotes economic stability in China and the world.

Claim 1: China Has the Best Policy for Combating COVID-19

The CCP media portray the Shanghai lockdown as the best and ideal policy. As cited by a XinhuaNet editorial, “China’s dynamic zero-COVID approach” is “the best option to save lives,” according to a “Rwandan researcher and publisher,” “…a miracle for us to learn,” according to a Kenyan scholar, and “a very ideal response,” according to Ethiopia’s National COVID-19 Response Task Force Coordinator. According to CCP media, Chinese citizens have greeted the Shanghai lockdown warmly, even with “[a] mixed sense of intensity, unity and hopefulness,” according to China Daily.

Claim 2: The West Hypocritically Defames China

The CCP press also accuses the West of lying about the Shanghai lockdown, and using COVID policies for nefarious ends. According to XinhuaNet, “Shanghai…has never imposed what Western media described as a ‘lockdown.’” Other CCP editorials actually accuse the West of malice. One Global Times editorial claims that the lockdown “has been deliberately exaggerated by the West.” Another Global Times editorial asserts that the Western approach of “coexisting with the virus” amounts to a way “…to drive out a large number of the vulnerable people with low immunity,” and a form of “cruel social Darwinism.”

Claim 3: China’s COVID Policies Result in an Economic Windfall to China and the World

The CCP also portrays the lockdown as necessary to achieve great economic growth in China and beyond. One Global Times editorial, while conceding that the lockdown amounted to a “sealing-off,” it is “a temporary measure to better resume work and production and to make the economy and society function more effectively. Its effectiveness has been proven.” According to another Global Times editorial, China’s policy is “widely considered to be the best strategy…to both contain the epidemic and ensure stable economic development.”

In an Orwellian fashion, Chinese press claims that China is solving, not causing, the world’s economic problems. According to XinhuaNet, “China has played a decisive role in stabilizing the global economy and resuming the supply chain disrupted by COVID-19.” Citing a Bloomberg article, the same XinhuaNet editorial claims that China “has prevented a huge number of deaths at home and ensured that everything from iPhones and Teslas to fertilizer and car parts continues to flow to the rest of the world.” Chinese citizens, of course, are collateral damage: Ji Qiwei, vice-general manager of SAIC Motor Passenger Vehicle, stated that “The domestic market may be impacted a little by the COVID-19 outbreak this year, but our export market will continue to see strong growth,” according to China Daily.

While the world continues to suffer economic and human damage as a result of COVID-19, China continues to revise history regarding its role. Through its propaganda in its English publications of Xinhua, China Daily, and Global Times, China seeks to portray itself as a benevolent force in the fight against the virus.

You can follow Steve Postal on Twitter @HebraicMosaic

You may like

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending Now

Advertisement

Trending

Proudly Made In America | © 2022 M3 Media Management, LLC