Daily Archives: May 14, 2020

Last Thursday, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that a major First Amendment doctrine should be abandoned, and that the right to free speech be significantly shrunk in the process. Its the second time hes done so in a little over a year, and at least the third time Thomas has called for a major slice of Americans free speech rights to be cut away.

His latest call to reduce free speech rights came in United States v. Sineneng-Smith, a case involving an immigration lawyer who fraudulently charged her clients a total of $3.3 million to file for a change in their immigration status that she knew they were ineligible to receive. The Court ruled unanimously, and on narrow procedural grounds, to toss out a ruling benefiting this immigration lawyer.

Though Thomas joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgs unanimous opinion, he also wrote a separate opinion joined by no other justice. In it, he calls for the Court to reconsider its overbreadth doctrine, a First Amendment doctrine that allows courts to cast an especially skeptical eye on laws that restrict free speech. In doing so, Thomas admitted that he is now calling for the Court to reconsider a doctrine that hes supported in the past.

As a general rule, courts are reluctant to accept facial challenges to an allegedly unconstitutional law challenges that seek to invalidate the law in all of its applications rather than simply holding that the court will not apply that particular law to a particular plaintiff. The overbreadth doctrine makes it easier to bring a facial challenge under the First Amendment, and thus provides heightened protection against laws that burden free speech. Thomass opinion would permit many laws that burden free speech to remain on the books, even after a court determines that they would chill a significant amount of free expression.

Its not the first time Thomas has articulated a narrow vision of the First Amendment. In 2019, he attacked his Courts decision in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), one of the Supreme Courts foundational First Amendment decisions, which protects journalists against malicious libel suits that could stifle a free press.

Likewise, in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), Thomas suggested that children and teenagers have no First Amendment rights whatsoever. The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that the freedom of speech, he wrote in his Brown dissent, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors parents or guardians. No other justice joined Thomass opinion in Brown.

These are serious attacks on the right to free speech. Thomass Brown opinion alone, if it were embraced by a majority of his Court, would strip free speech rights from nearly 74 million individuals.

So its striking that there is one other case where Thomas took a very expansive view of the First Amendment. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court held that the right to free speech includes the right of corporations to spend unlimited money on influencing elections. In a partial dissenting opinion, Thomas complained that Citizens United does not go far enough.

Justice Thomas, in other words, envisions a much weaker First Amendment for children, journalists, and, indeed, for much of the country. But when wealthy donors seek relief from campaign finance restrictions, Thomas takes a maximalist view of their First Amendment rights.

Thomass opinion in Sineneng-Smith involves a fairly technical doctrine, but its worth taking a moment to understand that doctrine, and Thomass critique of it, because that critique is at odds with the view Thomas takes in Citizens United.

As a general rule, federal courts hear two types of constitutional challenges claiming that a federal or state law violates the Constitution. Facial challenges seek to invalidate a specific legal provision in its entirety. If a plaintiff prevails in such a challenge, then the legal provision they challenged ceases to operate altogether.

By contrast, when a court declares that a law is invalid as applied to a particular plaintiff, that means the law cannot be applied in the specific circumstances that arose in that particular case. But there may still be other circumstances where the law can constitutionally be applied to other individuals.

Ordinarily, courts are reluctant to declare a law invalid on its face. As the Supreme Court explained in United States v. Salerno (1987), a facial challenge to a legislative Act is ... the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.

Think of it this way. Suppose a state passes a law providing that bail for all persons charged with theft shall be at least $100,000. Now suppose that two different criminal defendants challenge this law under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits excessive bail.

The first defendant is a teenager charged with shoplifting a pack of gum from a convenience store. The second is a notorious art thief, with multiple aliases and connections across the globe, who is charged with stealing tens of millions of dollars worth of famous paintings. In these circumstances, a $100,000 bail would clearly be excessive for the first defendant. But, if anything, its probably too low for the second defendant.

Because there are at least some sets of circumstances where a $100,000 bail would be appropriate for a criminal defendant charged with theft, no one could bring a facial challenge to the state law setting this minimum bail amount. But the shoplifiting defendant could bring an as-applied challenge claiming that, as applied to their rather insignificant offense, a bail of $100,000 is excessive.

And that brings us to the overbreadth doctrine. That doctrine provides that Salernos high bar for facial challenges does not apply to First Amendment lawsuits. Rather, as the Supreme Court explained in United States v. Stevens (2010), a law that burdens free speech may sometimes be facially invalidated if a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional.

The reason for this overbreadth doctrine is that the Court believes free speech rights to be particularly fragile. If courts allow statutes that ban some forms of speech to stand, the mere existence of those laws could frighten individuals away from exercising their First Amendment rights. As the Court explained in Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973), the possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech of others may be muted and perceived grievances left to fester because of the possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes.

Nevertheless, Thomas raises a number of objections to this overbreadth doctrine in his Sineneng-Smith opinion. He claims it is untethered from the text and history of the First Amendment, and that, rather than being rooted in the way the First Amendment was originally understood, the overbreath doctrine first emerged in the mid-20th century.

One of Thomass primary objections to the doctrine is that he believes the Salerno standard should apply universally indeed, Thomas criticizes the very idea that anyone could bring a facial challenge against any law. Our modern practice of strik[ing] down legislation as facially unconstitutional bears little resemblance to the practices of 18th and 19th century courts, according to Thomas.

Fair enough. Read in isolation, the new viewpoint that Thomas announced in Sineneng-Smith could be seen as a call for judicial restraint an assertion that courts should be more cautious before they toss out an act of a legislature altogether.

But in Citizens United, Thomas sang a very different tune.

The thrust of Thomass opinion in Citizens United, the landmark Supreme Court decision that gutted much of Americas campaign finance laws, is that as-applied challenges are insufficient to protect donors whose political spending is disclosed to the public, and that the Supreme Court should have declared a federal campaign finance disclosure law facially invalid.

The bulk of Thomass partial dissent in Citizens United tells horror stories about conservative donors whose donations became public, and who then suffered social or financial consequences. Thomas alleges that a handful of donors to a campaign opposing marriage equality received threats, and he claims that the director of a musical theater company who donated to this campaign was forced to resign after artists complained to his employer. Thomas also claims that a restaurant manager who donated to this anti-LGBTQ campaign was forced to resign after protesters targeted the restaurant.

A majority of the Court concluded that these incidents were insufficient reason to strike down disclosure laws on their face although the Citizens United majority added that as-applied challenges would be available if a group could show a reasonable probability that disclosure of its contributors names will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties.

Thomas, however, rejected this conclusion. The Courts promise that as-applied challenges will adequately protect speech is a hollow assurance, he wrote, adding that the advent of the Internet enables prompt disclosure of expenditures, which provide[s] political opponents with the information needed to intimidate and retaliate against their foes.

In Thomass view, disclosure laws must be struck down on their face, in order to prevent campaign donors from facing harassment.

Whatever the merits of this position which was rejected by all eight of Thomass colleagues in Citizens United it is difficult to reconcile the position Thomas took on disclosure laws in Citizens United with the broad concerns with our modern practice of strik[ing] down legislation as facially unconstitutional that he announced in Sineneng-Smith.

In fairness, Thomas does concede in his Sineneng-Smith opinion that he has previously joined the Court in applying the overbreadth doctrine. So his current opposition to First Amendment facial challenges appears to be a recent development. Perhaps, when Thomas hears another campaign finance case, he will rebuke his own analysis in Citizens United and admit that it is inconsistent with the views he expressed in Sineneng-Smith.

But, at the very least, it is enough to point out that Thomas took a maximalist approach to the First Amendment in Citizens United, and then took such a radically different approach in a more recent opinion.

A common thread running through Thomass First Amendment decisions indeed, a thread that runs through Thomass decisions on many topics is his belief that the Court has departed from the way the Constitution was understood by the generation that framed it. His primary complaint in Sineneng-Smith is that the overbreadth doctrine is untethered from the text and history of the First Amendment. Similarly, in McKee v. Cosby (2019), Thomas argues that a venerable Supreme Court decision protecting journalists from malicious libel suits was wrong because it did not apply the First Amendment as it was understood by the people who ratified it.

One overarching problem with Thomass project of trying to interpret that First Amendment as it was originally understood by the framing generation is that it is far from clear that such a thing is possible. And, if it is possible, there is considerable evidence that the framers understanding of the amendment was so narrow that modern-day Americans would find it unacceptable.

Under the English common law, which informed much of the founding generations understanding of early American law, the freedom of speech and of the press was largely understood as a right not to have the government stop an individual from publishing a particular statement. But once that statement became public, the individual who made it could still face legal consequences for their speech.

Early Supreme Court decisions interpreting the First Amendment accepted this limited view of free speech. As the Supreme Court concluded in Patterson v. Colorado (1907), the main purpose of the First Amendments guarantee of free speech and a free press is to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments, and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare.

Of course, modern Supreme Court decisions reject this narrow view of the First Amendment, but they did not do so because modern-day justices developed a better understanding of how the framers understood the freedom of speech. Many First Amendment scholars have concluded that the task of figuring out that amendments original meaning is impossible. As Judge Robert Bork, the failed Supreme Court nominee and godfather of the conservative originalist movement, wrote in 1971, the framers seem to have had no coherent theory of free speech and appear not to have been overly concerned with the subject.

Yet while there is little clarity regarding the original understanding of the First Amendment, the framing generation does appear to have had very robust ideas about the legal rights of corporations. And these ideas are hard to square with the expansive vision of corporate rights that the Supreme Court, with Thomass enthusiastic support, embraced in Citizens United.

In a 2016 law review article, former Delaware Chief Justice Leo Strine and his former law clerk Nicholas Walter explain that there were no business corporations operating under so called general corporation statutes in the early United States. Rather, corporations were created by the government, and given detailed charters that their managers were obligated to follow with fidelity.

As the Supreme Court held in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), a corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it either expressly or as incidental to its very existence.

For this reason, Strine and Walter conclude, Citizens United is out of step with the original understanding of the First Amendment, not because it reads the amendment itself too expansively, but because the framers would not have understood the modern Supreme Courts conclusion that a corporation possesses constitutional rights.

Thomas claims to root his opinions in the original understanding of the First Amendment, but its far from clear that the framing generation had a coherent understanding of that amendment. And in the one area where Thomas takes an unusually expansive approach to the First Amendment campaign finance there is considerable evidence that early Americans rejected Thomass understanding of corporate rights.

Support Voxs explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Voxs work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

See more here:
Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas calls for shrinking the First Amendment - Vox.com

As the COVID-19 crisis stretches on, were seeing more conflict, more protests and particularly more online rancor in the debate over how and if public officials should open up society or government restraints on gatherings, from bowling leagues and bars to religious services and retail stores.

The First Amendments protection for free speech covers most of what we may say, whether its impolite, insulting, biased or uplifting, even commentary or forcefully expressed opinions that most of us would find repulsive or repugnant.

But one area not protected as free speech is called a true threat, words that cause a person to fear for their safety or life. In a crisis, we may find things we say are taken in a different context by police, prosecutors and juries than at other, less stressful times.

Unfortunately for those trying to measure their own remarks, setting out a precise definition for what constitutes a true threat has flummoxed even the U.S. Supreme Court. The result is a division of opinion in federal and state courts across the country.

Toss in the new machinations of social media, which remove the element of face-to-face confrontation, but also provide a degree of anonymity and lack of restraints and the lines dividing protected and unprotected speech blur even more.

Speech threatening bodily harm made to a specific person standing in front of you while you have a weapon for example, holding a knife and saying I have a knife and Im going to cut your throat leaves little doubt that its a true threat.

But what if the person at whom those same words are directed isnt nearby when the remark is made, but sees it hours or days later on social media? What if the speaker sets the words to music, posts the statement as part of a YouTube video and later claims it was just a form of anger control therapy even if the intended target (think you or me) took the threat seriously?

For many years, evidence that a statement could be judged as putting any reasonable person in fear was enough to support a conviction in many courts. But in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Elonis v. United States, focused on the intent of the person making the statement, effectively saying that consideration was important and perhaps essential when deciding if the speaker was indeed issuing a true threat.

But the high court didnt set out any means of measuring intent, leaving things hanging. Two years later, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, in Perez v. Florida, where the court refused to reconsider the conviction of a man who threatened to blow up a liquor store, that while states must prove more than mere utterance of threatening words, some level of intent is required (and) the Court should also decide precisely what level of intent suffices under the First Amendment, noting that did not happen in Elonis.

All of that leaves many of us subject to state laws that dont include a requirement to consider what we might mean when we say it, just how a reasonable person would feel about our words. Got enough money or time to get to the Supreme Court? Such a conviction would seem likely to be thrown out.

Not the bright line between right and wrong that we should expect to see when it comes to criminal prosecutions.

Case in point: According to Kentuckys Lexington Herald Leader, Louisville lawyer James Gregory Troutman, 53, was charged April 22 with terroristic threatening for two Facebook posts directed at Gov. Andy Beshear.

Maybe some should ask Beshear in a press conference about his thoughts on William Goebel, Troutman was reported by police to have said in a post, For those of you who dont know the history its a good read. Goebel, shot to death in 1900, in is the only serving U.S. governor ever assassinated.

Police said Troutman also later posted, in a Facebook exchange about Beshear ordering photos to be taken of license plates of churchgoers flouting social distancing orders, With any luck the gov will be the one at whom the shooting will be directed.

Police said Troutman was threatening to commit a crime likely to result in death or serious physical injury to the Kentucky governor. But Troutmans lawyer said the man didnt say he was going to kill him.

If you were sitting on a jury considering the charges against Troutman, a 1969 Supreme Court decision in Watts v. United States might help you decide. In that Vietnam War-era case, a protester was charged with threatening President Lyndon Johnson for telling a rally that if they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ.

The court later decided that Watts had engaged in a crude form of political hyperbole rather than utter a true threat. The justices identified what later came to be known as the Watts factors: The context in which the words were spoken, the reaction of those who heard the remarks and the certainty of the remarks.

They noted that Watts made his statements during a political rally, that those who overheard his remarks laughed and his statement was conditional rather than definitive.

Still today, some lower courts use the Watts factors to determine whether speech crosses the line into the realm of true threats, Freedom Forum First Amendment Fellow David Hudson notes.

Another kind of hyperbole: Wishing that a meteor will fall from the sky and injure or kill a certain person may well be what most of us would find hateful and morally wrong, but its safely protected under the First Amendment.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court found in 2003, in Virginia v. Black perhaps its most direct ruling about true threat that the state of Virginia could prosecute people for cross burning intended to intimidate or instill fear in others. Dissenting voices said cross burning is always unprotected speech since it can have no effect other than intimidating others, but the courts majority did not agree. Again, the intent of the speaker, as in Elonis, rather than the meaning to those receiving the message, was held most significant.

The justices did offer this definition: True threats are those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group.

Adding to the conflicted legal views over true threats was the 2019 refusal by the justices to consider an appeal by Jamal Knox, a Pittsburgh rap music artist convicted over lyrics in a song Fuck the Police, recorded in 2012 while facing weapon and drug charges. The song named arresting officers and included lyrics saying, Lets kill these cops cuz they dont do us no good / pullin out your Glock out cause I live in the hood and Ima jam this rusty knife all in his guts and chop his feet your shift over at 3 and Im gonna fuck up where you sleep.

Critics of Knoxs conviction note that other more widely recognized artists have used similar statements in their music without prosecution and that local courts generally dont understand the role of rap music in urban culture.

Officials cited Knoxs specific identification of the officers and in 2018 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said his lyrics were threats, not political, social or academic commentary, nor are they facially satirical or ironic.

From armed protestors confronting state police officers in the Michigan capitol building to armed revelers at a Texas bar arrested in a SWAT raid, from angry crowds outside a number of gubernatorial residences to violent words on social media, the potential for threating actions and actual violence today is higher than ever.

So how to judge whether your words, expressive conduct (such as marching with signs or weapons) or violent social media posts are protected speech?

Colleagues at the Freedom Forums education unit provide a lesson plan for free to help you navigate those First Amendment true threat waters: In You Cant Say That?! you will learn about restrictions to freedom of speech in public life and the court cases that determined when and why those limits apply.

Bottom line: In the U.S., the First Amendment certainly protects your right to speak. But theres no absolute protection from the effects of what you say particularly when those words may put a specific person in fear of injury or death.

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum, and president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at gpolicinski@freedomforum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.

Here is the original post:
What words make up a true threat? Well, that depends - The Mercury

By Trevor Dunnell, For The Daily News

ThursdayMay14,2020at2:28PM

As law enforcement agencies around the state express their stance of not interfering with the church services, the Onslow County Sheriffs Office reminded their residents they will do the same.

Sheriff Hans Miller held a press conference on Tuesday explaining the departments stand on first amendment rights for residents in Onslow. It has not changed since the beginning of the stay-at-home order.

We have received calls from local church pastors about worship services and our answer was very clear from the beginning, we support the first amendment right to worship, said Miller. We support people's right to worship.

Miller added Gov. Roy Coopers guidance for church services during Phase One of reopening the state is that church services should take place outside unless it is impossible to do so.

_____________________

Editors note: This coverage is being provided for free as part of our coronavirus coverage. Please consider supporting local journalism by purchasing a digital subscription to The Daily News. Our rates start as low as $1 a month.

_________________

On Monday, Cooper clarified the Phase One order does not prohibit multiple events from happening, in order to meet social distancing requirements of 10 or less people gathering inside.

According to Miller, deputies will not interfere with churches or limit how many people are allowed inside for worship.

What we suggest is as long as you maintain social distancing, it is perfectly fine to do so whether it is inside or outside, added Miller. If you are a family that lives together, then thats okay for you to to sit together.

Miller explained the main objective during reopening is to ensure everyone is being safe.

If you have people that want to congregate to worship or shop, as one human being to another I would say continue social distancing and advise people to wear any type of mask that can cover up how the virus can spread, added Miller.

Read more:
Onslow Sheriffs department will not interfere with indoor church services - Jacksonville Daily News

May 14 (UPI) -- There is growing concern in our nation about the unconstitutional overreach of the judiciary in religious affairs. In courtrooms around the country, activist judges are rendering judgments that are collectively eroding the right to religious freedom protected by the First Amendment. The commissions formed to oversee the appointments of these judges are often failing to hold them accountable.

One such travesty is playing out in our nation's capital. Judge Laura Cordero of the Washington, D.C. Superior Court issued an unconstitutional summary judgment ruling in the case 2011 CA 003721 B, which effectively gave legitimacy to one religious faction over another in an ongoing schism within the Unification Movement founded by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Entering its ninth year, the case explicitly involves questions of religious polity, structure and theology.

Historically, courts have properly abstained from any involvement in the internal affairs of religious entities, as required by the First Amendment. Yet, despite the facts being disputed by both parties, Cordero issued a ruling that decided the issues in question without a jury trial. At a minimum, Cordero should have held a hearing to consider evidence and arguments of the parties involved and should have followed proper protocol for summary judgment, which requires the party seeking summary judgment to show there is no genuine dispute of any material fact.

Cordero also ignored the appellate court's caution that the case must be dismissed if "it becomes apparent to the trial court that this dispute does in fact turn on matters of doctrinal interpretation or church governance."

As such, Cordero set a dangerous legal precedent by unilaterally ruling on the doctrine, hierarchy and leadership of a religious entity. Not only has she trampled on the First Amendment by involving herself in a religious schism, but she also engaged in religious discrimination by favoring one side's unproven claims over the other's evidence-backed claims.

Compounding this injustice, the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure issued its report to President Donald Trump awarding Cordero a "well qualified" reappointment on April 27. This decision was rendered despite numerous factual misrepresentations and 5,000 emails to the commission objecting to her reappointment due to First Amendment violations and her religious bias in the above case. Though thousands of people of faith collectively decried her discrimination against their faith, their voices were callously dismissed by the commission. But the commission's report reveals a government agency contradicting itself and issuing falsehoods to the president.

One example of the report's many contradictions pertains to the 5,000 emails referenced above. The report says the emails the commission received "sharply criticized Judge Cordero's legal reasoning," but that legal reasoning "is not within the commission's purview to consider." Yet, in the very same paragraph, the commission states Cordero's ruling was "quite persuasive," as well as "well-reasoned, clear and concise and meticulous as to the facts and the law."

By what parameters, other than "legal reasoning," can the commission say her opinion was "quite persuasive" and "well-reasoned"? It is contradictory, dishonest and disrespectful for the commission to give this praise to Cordero, while, in the same paragraph, dismissing thousands of emails with the claim that "legal reasoning" is "not within the commission's purview to consider." And, it is simply irresponsible and inappropriate for the commission to praise the opinion issued by a judge against a party in a case that is ongoing.

The report contains many other falsehoods. According to the report, "Judge Cordero originally dismissed the case on lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to religious abstention." This is false. The case was dismissed by Judge Anita Josey-Herring in 2013, not by Cordero. The report claims that Cordero's decision "was affirmed on appeal." This is another outright falsehood. A cursory glance at the docket of the case reveals that Cordero's decision was never appealed. As such, there was no way for it to be "affirmed." Since no punitive action ever took place, there could have been no appeal.

All this information about judicial activity that is blatantly false or misattributed is being utilized to exaggerate the performance of a judge and to give her the highest possible rating.

The report on Cordero's reappointment by the commission reveals the worst elements of cronyism. Not only is the report riddled with contradictions and outright falsehoods, but it demonstrates a willingness to go to any length to rubber-stamp the reappointments of sitting judges, regardless of their performance. The examples here are a few of the misrepresented facts that aided in giving Cordero the highest possible rating; but one can only wonder what other facts were twisted to make her case.

A quick check on this commission's record concerning reappointments shows that 31 judges have come up for review in the last 13 years, and that every single judge was given the "well qualified" designation. According to the commission's own policy, the "well qualified" designation is reserved only for those judges "whose work product, legal scholarship, dedication, efficiency and demeanor are exceptional." If a judge ignores due process and violates the First Amendment and is yet considered "exceptional," what does that say about the integrity of our judicial system?

Judges should uphold the Constitution and follow proper judicial procedure. Oversight commissions should make every effort to conduct due diligence on judges' cases before reappointing them to the bench. We must hold judges and the judicial appointment process accountable so that this nation can continue to be an exemplar of religious freedom and the rule of law.

Howard C. Self is the president of Right To Believe, a not-for-profit organization fighting to protect the right to believe in one's religion without undue governmental interference. He has also held leadership roles at the Family Peace Association and in the Unification Movement, which are affiliated with the ultimate holding company that owns UPI.

Continued here:
Religious freedom is under threat in the courtroom - UPI.com

High profile Wilmington attorney demands that Governor Carney lifts restrictions onreligious worshipping.

Today, in a six-page demand letter from its attorneys, the Committee To Save Christmas demanded that Governor Carney stop his illegal discrimination against religious worship, as well as peaceable protests by the faith community.

Declaring that fear of imprisonment prevented Christians from attending Church services on Easter Sunday, April 12, 2020, the Committee noted that Carney criminalized the communal celebration of Easter and barred citizens from gathering in their churches for this most holy day of the year. This must never happen again. With eight months now remaining before the communal celebration of Christmas, now is the time for Carney to take proper steps to allow religious worship inside churches, synagogues, and mosques, provided social distancing and other generally applicable health related precautions are responsibly practiced by the religious congregations. Otherwise, Christmas this year also will be criminalized here in Delaware.

More specifically, Carneys orders allow secular activities but not religious worship activities. Grocery stores, law firms, laundromats, liquor stores, and landscaping businesses, among others, continue to operate so long as they follow social distancing and other health-related precautions. But Carneys Orders do not permit soul-sustaining group services of faith organizations, even if the groups adhere to all the public health guidelines required of the other services. Under his Orders, a person can go out to a liquor store to buy beer but cannot go out to their church to worship God. Such a distinction cannot stand, because if beer is essential, so is Christmas.

While Carneys emergency Orders, criminalizing Easter worship and services within the walls of church sanctuaries, can be viewed as an honest mistake, the Committee urged him to correct that mistake and ensure it is not repeated in the future. Provided churches practice the generally applicable social distancing requirements, religious service attendance must be permitted, it demanded.

While the state has an obvious interest in preventing the spread of infectious disease, its restrictions of the fundamental right to communal worship must be the least restrictive means practically available. And, if the state permits social interaction for commercial or other purposes, as occurred here in Delaware, but denies similar social interaction for religious exercise, this is not using the least restrictive means to regulate First Amendment-protected activity and Carneys Orders are illegal, unconstitutional and cry out for correction.

As one federal court recently held If social distancing is good enough for Home Depot and Kroger, it is good enough for in-person religious services which, unlike the foregoing, benefit from constitutional protection. Tabernacle Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, F.Supp.3d , 2020 WL 2305307, at *5 (E.D. Ky. May 8, 2020).

The time of emergency is coming to an end, and there are many months to thoughtfully prepare for a Fall surge of the virus. But the illegal hurried infringements of vital constitutional freedoms will remain on the books as precedents unless these past errors are corrected to return to the normal before this crisis arose. Absent those corrections being made the Committee expects legal action would be taken in federal court to prevent the repeat of the discriminatory mistakes of the past.

Read The Letter Here 2020_05_13_Carney demand letter signed

Read more:
Neuberger Demands That Carney Lift Restrictions On Worshipping Now - First State Update