The court blocked so-called convention restrictions in Santa Clara County that critics say treated churches other than secular businesses in violation of the first amendment.
The case bitterly divided the court and the three liberal judges – Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor – noted their disagreement in an order issued after hours on Friday.
The court acted despite the fact that the restrictions are expected to be lifted next week.
The dispute was brought by several churches in Santa Clara County who objected to a ban on all indoor gatherings, including political events, weddings, funerals, film screenings and worship services.
Although the Supreme Court earlier this month rejected state regulations banning prohibited indoor worship services, the state allows provinces to comply with their own stricter rules.
In court documents, attorneys from the Santa Clara County churches said the province did exactly that.
“The director of public health in Santa Clara has forced worshipers outdoors in the heat and smoke of summer and the cold and rain of fall and winter,” Kevin T. Snider, an attorney for the churches, argued in court documents.
“Article III courts have a duty to protect the rights of the people in a jealous and zealous manner against the other two branches of government and the states in times like these,” he said and the country “an island of tyranny called ”.
Santa Clara County allows houses of worship to be 20% for any purpose other than worship services. Other businesses, including grocery and retail stores, as well as hair salons and tattoo and body art salons, may be allowed to operate 20%.
A lower court upheld the restrictions by believing that these are neutral regulations that apply to everyone.
In court documents, advocates of the province have distinguished their dispute from the recent case in the Supreme Court, South Bay v. Gavin Newsom, who deals with widespread regulations. They said their restrictions were “substantially different” from others the judges had already considered because they “did not impose special restrictions on religious institutions.”
“Instead,” said James R. Williams, of the County Counsel’s office, “they forbid all indoor meetings of all kinds in all places.” Williams stressed that the places of worship were not closed. They are open so that individuals can pray, confess, and seek spiritual guidance.
“Critically, retail stores and other secular businesses are subject to exactly the same rules,” he said, pointing out that buyers may buy items indoors but that they may not attend an indoor event such as a book reading.
In its brief Friday order, the Supreme Court disagrees, although it did not provide its reasoning. The court said the outcome of the case was “clearly prescribed” by its ruling in South Bay.