Dague & Martin, P.C.

https://legalinsurrection.com//u-s-supreme-court-denies-/ A challenge by Texas, supported by lots of other red states and opposed by many blue states, to the election procedures in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and other states, was dismissed by the supreme court late Friday. Had the challenge been successful it would have delayed the vote of the electoral college on December 14 which is expected to give Joe Biden a majority of electoral votes in the November 3rd el...ection for president. The legal procedure used by Texas to bring this lawsuit was a lawsuit filed in the supreme court under its original jurisdiction over any lawsuit between states. This legal procedure is set forth in the constitution allowing one state to bring a suit against another. In other words, the lawsuit was filed directly in the supreme court, rather than in a lower court and appealed to the supreme court. The supreme court dismissed the Texas challenge in a short unsigned one paragraph order which stated that the Texas lawsuit is denied for lack of standing to challenge the election procedure in another state. There is a single sentence of explanation for why the seven justices of the court did this. It reads that, Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. Two justices of the court, Alito and Thomas, dissented from this dismissal saying that, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.

https://www.reuters.com//france-must-review-covid-19-crowd It is not often that we talk about French legal cases. But this story is about how a French court found a 30 person limit to the number of people allowed in a church for a worship service be too severe of a reaction to the pandenic. It is interesting to compare this to the US supreme court's decision on the eve of Thanksgiving in DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN v. CUOMO which struck down the New York governour's overly severe restrictions on church attendance.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf The US supreme court has stepped in and defended the religious liberty of churches and church members in the face of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's overly broad and discriminatory orders. The court's 5 to 4 decision, issued on Wednesday, November 25th, struck down the limitation of the churches in a so called "red zone" to admit more than 10 persons, and "orange zones" to admit no more that 25 people, while busin...esses categorized as essential may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of essential businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities. This is a decision on an application for a preliminary injunction pending the lower court's action on the full case. At last the supreme court has come down on the side of religious liberty in the face of the highly discriminatory and dictatorial actions of the New York governor who uses his executive orders to target religious gatherings. The addition of Justice Any Coney Barrett to the court made all the difference here, especially given that Chief Justice Roberts voted with the liberals in favor of the state of New York's restriction on church attendance.

The targeting of Jewish synagogues by the New York governor with his arbitrary closures of houses of worship under the guise of pandemic restrictions will likely end up in the supreme court. It will be a test for whether religious liberty will prevail over rules which close places of worship but not other mass events such as protests and celebrations of political victories. https://thefederalist.com//will-the-supreme-court-finally/