Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent in one of the latest rulings tore apart the decision to allow a New York vaccine mandate for healthcare workers that rejects religious exemptions.
Once again, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, sided with the liberal justices in allowing the mandate to stay, The Washington Examiner reported.
These two justices are often at odds with the three conservatives. Chief Justice Roberts also sided with the Left and does so in many, if not most cases.
The three conservative Justices have in the recent past warned that Kavanaugh and Barrett lack courage.
Kavanaugh and Barrett are serious disappointments and they are not conservatives. Their rulings have been a source of disagreements among the Justices. It doesn’t help that the Red Pope okayed the cell lines in the production of the vaccine.
The court voted 6 -3 to reject a request that came from 20 anonymous doctors and medical faculty workers, the majority of whom were Catholic, to grant a religious exemption to the vaccine mandate.
“These applicants are not ‘anti-vaxxers’ who object to all vaccines,” Justice Gorsuch said. “Instead, the applicants explain, they cannot receive a COVID–19 vaccine because their religion teaches them to oppose abortion in any form, and because each of the currently available vaccines has depended upon abortion-derived fetal cell lines in its production or testing.”
“In this case, no one seriously disputes that, absent relief, the applicants will suffer an irreparable injury,” he said. “Not only does New York threaten to have them fired and strip them of unemployment benefits. This Court has held that ‘The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’”
New York introduced its vaccine mandate for healthcare workers while Cuomo was governor. His successor, Kathy Hochul, preserved the mandate. The vaccine requirement included a deadline of Nov. 22 for medical personnel to receive at least one dose of the vaccine to continue working, allowing for some medical exemptions — but not for religious reasons.
Justice Gorsuch argued that the court was “stand[ing] silent as majorities invade the constitutional rights of the unpopular and unorthodox.”
“Facing the imminent loss of their jobs and unemployment benefits, the doctors and nurses before us filed two separate lawsuits seeking a preliminary injunction preventing New York from enforcing its new mandate against them,” Gorsuch said.
“In the first suit, District Judge David Hurd granted the requested relief after concluding that New York’s ‘intentional change in language is the kind of religious gerrymander’ that violates the First Amendment. In the second suit, the District Court reached a contrary conclusion and denied relief without an opinion,” he said.
“Under the Free Exercise Clause, government ‘cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices,’” the justice said. “As a result, we have said that government actions burdening religious practice should be ‘set aside’ if there is even ‘slight suspicion’ that those actions ‘stem from animosity to religion or distrust of its practices.’”
“New York’s mandate is such an action,” he said. “The State began with a plan to exempt religious objectors from its vaccine mandate and only later changed course. Its regulatory impact statement offered no explanation for the about-face. At the same time, a new Governor whose assumption of office coincided with the change in policy admitted that the revised mandate ‘left off’ a religious exemption ‘intentionally.’”
“The Governor offered an extraordinary explanation for the change too. She said that ‘God wants people to be vaccinated—and that those who disagree are not listening to ‘organized religion’ or ‘everybody from the Pope on down.’ Then the new Governor went on to announce changes to the State’s unemployment scheme designed to single out for special disfavor healthcare workers who failed to comply with the revised mandate. This record gives rise to more than a ‘slight suspicion’ that New York acted out of ‘animosity [toward] or distrust of’ unorthodox religious beliefs and practices,” the justice said.
“This record practically exudes suspicion of those who hold unpopular religious beliefs,” he said. “That alone is sufficient to render the mandate unconstitutional as applied to these applicants.”
Subscribe to the Daily Newsletter
