U.S. Supreme Court Swiftly Overrules Second Circuit on COVID-19 and Religious Worship
In this edition of their Second Circuit Review, Martin Flumenbaum and Brad S. Karp compare and contrast the different approaches of the Second Circuit and Supreme Court in 'Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo', and discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's decision.
December 22, 2020 at 12:45 PM
8 minute read
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court enjoined Gov. Andrew Cuomo from enforcing portions of his executive order addressing COVID-19 "hot spots" in New York state. The ruling came less than three weeks after the Second Circuit declined to block the order, holding that it most likely did not infringe upon the First Amendment rights of religious worshippers. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding 5-4 that the attendance limits imposed by Governor Cuomo likely violated the First Amendment by "singling out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment." Although Governor Cuomo had already lifted the restrictions in question when the Supreme Court injunction issued, the decision has important implications for future cases. This month's column compares and contrasts the different approaches of the Second Circuit and Supreme Court in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, and discusses the implications of the Supreme Court's decision.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLessons Learned From the Pager Attack: the Law of War, Warfighting, and the Weaponization of the Supply Chain
8 minute readRoberts Calls Court's Relationship With Congress 'Strained.' Who's to Blame?
Preemptive Litigation: A Potential Approach for a Precise Situation
13 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1TikTok Law and TikTok Politics
- 2California Supreme Court Vacates Murder Conviction in Infant Abuse Case
- 3New York’s Proposed Legislation Restraining Transfer of Real Property
- 4Withers Hires Lawyers, Staff From LA Trusts and Estates Boutique
- 5To Speed Criminal Discovery, NY Bill Proposes Police-to-Prosecutor Pipeline For Records
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250