(AP Photo/Eric Gay)
(CN) A Ninth Circuit panel Friday affirmed a federal judge’s denial of a church’s bid to block California’s temporary ban on indoor worship during the Covid-19 pandemic, but said the state could not impose attendance caps in less restrictive tiers of its health order.
California’s public health order bars any indoor gathering for religious services when an increase in both Covid-19 infections and hospitalizations strain local health care systems.
The panel agreed that the church is suffering “irreparable harm” by not being allowed to hold worship services indoors with its members, but said the measures are necessary to curb viral spread.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. (Photo credit: Sanfranman59/Wikipedia)
(CN) A Ninth Circuit panel Friday considered whether California’s Covid-19 restrictions banning indoor worship services at churches are constitutional, or, if a trio of federal judges should revise the restrictions to allow reduced indoor capacity like what grocery stores are complying with to keep their doors open.
“If Costco is open, your honor, churches need to be open,” attorney Charles LiMandri, representing South Bay United Pentecostal Church told U.S. Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw during the virtual hearing.
LiMandri responded to the Clinton appointee’s question regarding what entities churches should be compared to for purposes of state operational restrictions during the pandemic by suggesting places of worship are essential and should be treated as such.
Toggle open close
Introduction
Vote harvesting is the collection of absentee ballots from voters by a third party who then delivers them to election officials. Allowing individuals other than the voter or his immediate family to handle absentee ballots is a recipe for mischief and wrongdoing in elections. Neither voters nor election officials have the means of verifying that the secrecy of the ballot has not been compromised or that ballots submitted by third parties such as candidates, campaign operatives, party activists, or political consultants have not been tampered with by the vote harvester. That is why Arizona wisely changed its law in 2016 to ban vote harvesting by certain third parties.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
In September, we addressed the developing caselaw governing an “e-tailer’s” exposure to products liability suits when a consumer purchases a defective product from a third-party vendor on the e-tailer’s sales platform. While these cases ultimately hinge on state law, courts have consistently focused on the level of control the e‑tailer exercised over the subject product, whether the state maintains an “innocent seller” or “sealed container” defense, and whether state law treats a downstream supplier’s liability as a function of public policy.
In the months following our original article, several courts have provided further guidance. In
first iteration of this ban? it will. and one of the most frustrating things about this is every time the president loses one of these cases he and his administration lambaste them as being so-called judges or liberal or activist judges. it s important to remember that that ninth circuit court of appeals decision, one of the three judges of that unanimous decision was richard clifton who is a george w. bush appointee. what the state of hawaii is doing here is standing up for bedrock american values. from the state s perspective, this is about what the law s fundamentally required. neal katyal, the lead attorney for the state of hawaii. that s the first state out of the gate now challenging the new iteration of the president s muslim ban. mr. katyal, thank you very much for your time tonight. keep us apprised. again, this breaking news, this lawsuit just filed, with he post what we ve got in terms of the court documents on this at maddowblog.com tonight.