General Category > SCOTUS News
Barrett and Kavanaugh Supply Majority to Deny Religious-Liberty Claim on Vaccine Mandate
libertybele:
Barrett and Kavanaugh Supply Majority to Deny Religious-Liberty Claim on Vaccine Mandate
They joined Roberts and the Court’s progressives in declining relief to Maine health-care providers, who must now be vaccinated against their beliefs or lose their jobs.
L ate Friday, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court’s three progressives in denying a preliminary injunction to a group of medical professionals who sought to be exempted from Maine’s vaccine mandate because of their religious convictions.
Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a compelling dissent in the case, John Does 1-3 v. Mills, joined by his fellow conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The dissenters stressed that, besides being likely to win on the merits, the religious objectors were merely asking to maintain the status quo — to keep their jobs despite being unvaccinated — while the Court decided whether to grant a full review of their case. In turning them down, Barrett and Kavanaugh dodged the weighty civil-rights issues, seeing the case, instead, as an opportunity to gripe about the Court’s emergency docket.
Maine now requires certain health-care workers to be vaccinated or face the loss of their jobs and medical practices. Unlike many such mandates, Maine’s does not provide an exemption for religious objectors. The plaintiffs are medical professionals who object to the vaccine, and thus the mandate, based on their Christian faith. Specifically, because fetal tissue from terminated pregnancies was used in developing the approved vaccines, the plaintiffs see immunization as an implicit endorsement of abortion, in violation of their religious beliefs. The sincerity of those beliefs is not in dispute.
The plaintiffs made an emergency application for a preliminary injunction. In his dissent from the 6–3 majority’s refusal to grant that application, Gorsuch explained that the main issues on such an injunction request are whether the applicants are likely to succeed on the merits and, if so, whether they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. Gorsuch proceeded to make a strong case that the claimants would prevail on both issues.
Religious liberty is fundamental, expressly protected by the First Amendment. Under currently controlling precedent (which, as I’ve previously detailed, is disputed), a law that impinges on religion may survive if it is both neutral (i.e., not hostile to religion) and generally applicable (i.e., imposed on everyone equally). Maine’s vaccine mandate does not meet this standard because it provides for individualized exemptions. Though medical professionals are not excused from compliance based on their religious beliefs, they needn’t comply if they get a note from a health-care provider claiming that, in their cases, immunization “may be” medically inadvisable.......................
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/barrett-and-kavanaugh-supply-majority-to-deny-religious-liberty-claim-on-vaccine-mandate/
Hoodat:
Not seeing how the First Amendment applies here. The people of Maine have the right to choose their own laws.
LegalAmerican:
--- Quote from: Hoodat on October 31, 2021, 01:07:42 am ---Not seeing how the First Amendment applies here. The people of Maine have the right to choose their own laws.
--- End quote ---
Correct. In their own state. STATES RIGHTS.
EdinVA:
--- Quote from: LegalAmerican on October 31, 2021, 01:48:10 am --- Correct. In their own state. STATES RIGHTS.
--- End quote ---
States rights still do not override the constitution.
LegalAmerican:
--- Quote from: EdinVA on October 31, 2021, 02:13:32 am ---States rights still do not override the constitution.
--- End quote ---
What are you saying to me? Just to talk and be contrary?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version