Supreme Court blocks some COVID-19 restrictions at religious services in New York, marking a shift from decisions made before Amy Coney Barrett joined the bench

• The Supreme Court on Wednesday blocked certain COVID-19 restrictions imposed on churches and other religious services in New York.
• In a 5-4 vote, the court ruled in favor of the Catholic Diocese and Orthodox Jewish synagogues, blocking some of Gov. Andrew Cuomo's capacity restrictions.
• In a ruling against the state's restrictions, the court's majority said the restrictions "cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment."
• The decision marked a shift from cases heard earlier in the year, before Justice Amy Coney Barrett replaced the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when the court ruled in favor of governors imposing attendance restrictions on religious services.

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday blocked certain COVID-19 restrictions imposed on churches and religious services in New York.

In a 5-4 vote, the court ruled in favor of the Catholic Diocese and Orthodox Jewish synagogues, blocking Gov. Andrew Cuomo's restrictions that applied 10- and 25- person occupancy limits to religious services held in designated red and orange zones, or places with severe coronavirus outbreaks.

The court was largely split along ideological lines, with the exception of Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal justices in dissent. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the conservative justices to constitute the five-vote majority.

The decision marked a shift from cases heard earlier in the year, before Coney Barrett replaced the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when the court ruled in favor of governors imposing attendance restrictions on religious services in California and Nevada.

Those cases were again split along ideological lines aside from Roberts joining the liberal justices, then including Ginsberg. The judgment indicates the significance of Coney Barrett's addition to the bench as cementing the court's 6-3 conservative majority.

The decision will not have an immediate effect on the two groups involved in the case, as they were no longer subject to the restrictions being considered, the Associated Press reported.

In ruling against the state's orders, the court's majority said the restrictions "cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment" and as such violated the First Amendment right of religious freedom.

The Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn made the argument that it was being singled out, as the same capacity restrictions were not being applied to other businesses in red and orange zones that were considered essential.

In his dissent, Roberts argued granting relief from the order was unnecessary as the groups involved were no longer subject to the numerical capacity limits, though he did say the 10- and 25- people limits seemed "unduly restrictive."

He also said his considerations, in this case, were different from the cases considered in California and Nevada, marking a departure from the three liberal justices, who in their separate dissent asserted the governor's right to impose reasonable restrictions based on science. They also said they did not believe religious rights were at stake in this case.