MASSIVE WIN: US Supreme Court Strikes Down Cuomo’s Rules That Shut Shuls

In a major win for religious freedoms, the US Supreme Court tonight voted 5-4 to strike down New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s rules that placed attendance limits on shuls and other houses of worship. 

“Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten,” the Court wrote in its majority opinion. “The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”

The ruling marks a massive win for Agudath Israel for America, who joined with the Catholic Diocese of New York in filing the suit with the Supreme Court.

As part of their opinions, the justices wrote that Governor Cuomo’s public statements about Orthodox Jews can be viewed as proof that he was targeting them.

In a scathing rebuke of Cuomo, Justice Gorsuch wrote, “According to the Governor it may be unsafe to go to church but it is fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. Who knew public health would perfectly align with secular inconvenience?”

The win for religious freedom also marks the first time in which the Supreme Court’s new conservative majority – following President Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the court – helped the cause of religious freedom in the United States nationwide.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the only conservative-leaning Justice to side with the Court’s liberals in the case, writing that there is “no need” to grant relief to religious organizations since the limits currently do not apply.




This content, and any other content on TLS, may not be republished or reproduced without prior permission from TLS. Copying or reproducing our content is both against the law and against Halacha. To inquire about using our content, including videos or photos, email us at [email protected].

Stay up to date with our news alerts by following us on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.

**Click here to join over 15,000 receiving our Whatsapp Status updates!**

**Click here to join the official TLS WhatsApp group!**

Got a news tip? Email us at [email protected], Text 415-857-2667, or WhatsApp 609-661-8668.

Check out the latest on TLS instagram


  1. Roberts is such a disappointment time and time again. The whole judiciary is flawed evidenced by the fact that you could predict ahead of time what each judge or justice will opine.

    • Did you see the contradiction in your comment?
      If Roberts is a disappointment to your expectations, the system is not flawed at all.
      It is flawed, because between Trump and McConell, partisan judiciaries are acceptable and encouraged. There isn’t even a veneer of objectivity.

      • We expect judges to judge based on the constitution as written, when they don’t and just make up stuff to justify the outcome they want then it is a disappointment, if it is republican appointed judge, if it is a democrat appointed judge we already know that that is what they will do, hence no disappointment. Just look at Roberts opinion upholding the ACA, and his opinions on the DACA case and the census question case.

  2. This was a temporary injunction only and not a decision. The injunction placed a hold on Cuomo’s rules until the court rules on the matter itself. First pitch of first inning, no real “win” yet. The ruling may be the court’s empty paean to religious rights, as the court knew well that the rules it suspended were no longer in effect anyway – as the Orthodox neighborhoods affected are no longer in the red zone. Finally, the court did not imply no limits can be placed on houses of worship, merely that Cuomo’s more restrictive limits on religious gatherings than on other forms of assembly (think protests, rallies etc) may be inherently discriminatory.

  3. @Chaim, exactly,Republican appointed justices time after time have become more liberal, never has a Democrat appointed justice become more conservative. B”H Trump got to replace the uber leftist RBG with the constitutionalist ACB.

    • Why do you think that is? Perhaps it is because when the case actually comes to court, all the right wing religious fervor fades away in a puff of smoke.
      Maybe your righteous indignation is not against the left, rather against the facts

  4. Justice Roberts is not a conservative, and never has been. What’s worse is that he isn’t neutral, either, almost always siding with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, no matter how radical the position.
    Let’s not forget that it were his vote, and his opinion that saddled this country with the Unaffordable Careless Action of “He who must not be named”.

Comments are closed.