Some of you commies were saying the states have power to destroy our constitutional rights...
Many of us told you that will depend on whether the states can show their remedies can withstand strict scrutiny... Turns out some us knew far more about the Constitution and how our rights are protected by the Constitution ... than than all your "constitutional scholars" quoted by your media.... combined....
.. The 9th circuit just... showed you to be commies.
===
The 9th circuit found : California violated Constitutional rights shutting down Private Schools...(while it was OK for them to close down Public schools)
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/07/23/20-56291.pdf
We reach a different conclusion, however, as to the State’s interference in the in-person provision of private education to the children of five of the Plaintiffs in this case. California’s forced closure of their private schools implicates a right that has long been considered fundamental under the applicable caselaw—the right of parents to control their children’s education and to choose their children’s educational forum. Because California’s ban on in-person schooling abridges a fundamental liberty of these five Plaintiffs that is protected by the Due Process Clause, that prohibition can be upheld only if it withstands strict scrutiny.
....
To satisfy strict scrutiny, California must show that its infringement of the private-school Plaintiffs’ rights is “narrowly tailored” to advance a “compelling” state interest. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533 (1993). “Stemming the spread of COVID-19 is unquestionably a compelling interest.” Diocese of Brooklyn, 141 S. Ct. at 67. The only question, therefore, is whether the State has shown that its broad prohibition of in-person education satisfies the narrow-tailoring requirement as a matter of law. It has not.
In Diocese of Brooklyn, the Supreme Court held that attendance caps of 10 and 25 people at indoor religious services in areas that were classified as having a high prevalence of Covid were not narrowly tailored. 141 S. Ct. at 67. As the Court explained, such caps were “more restrictive than any COVID–related
regulations” that the Court had upheld; they were “much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic”; and they were “far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus” at the relevant facilities. Id. The same points are applicable here. By prohibiting inperson instruction at the relevant Plaintiffs’ schools, California effectively imposed an attendance cap of zero, which is much more restrictive than the numerical caps struck down by the Supreme Court for religious services in Diocese of Brooklyn. 25 That alone confirms that California’s prohibition on in-person instruction is not sufficiently tailored. Moreover, Plaintiffs presented undisputed evidence that California’s broad and lengthy closure of schools was more severe than what many other jurisdictions have done, thereby further negating any suggestion that California adopted the least restrictive means of accomplishing its compelling interest. And Plaintiffs presented evidence that California had failed to narrowly tailor its response inasmuch as it stubbornly adhered to an overbroad school-closure order even as evidence mounted that Covid’s effects exhibit a significant age gradient, falling much more harshly on the elderly and having little impact, statistically speaking, on children...
Many of us told you that will depend on whether the states can show their remedies can withstand strict scrutiny... Turns out some us knew far more about the Constitution and how our rights are protected by the Constitution ... than than all your "constitutional scholars" quoted by your media.... combined....
.. The 9th circuit just... showed you to be commies.
===
The 9th circuit found : California violated Constitutional rights shutting down Private Schools...(while it was OK for them to close down Public schools)
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/07/23/20-56291.pdf
We reach a different conclusion, however, as to the State’s interference in the in-person provision of private education to the children of five of the Plaintiffs in this case. California’s forced closure of their private schools implicates a right that has long been considered fundamental under the applicable caselaw—the right of parents to control their children’s education and to choose their children’s educational forum. Because California’s ban on in-person schooling abridges a fundamental liberty of these five Plaintiffs that is protected by the Due Process Clause, that prohibition can be upheld only if it withstands strict scrutiny.
....
To satisfy strict scrutiny, California must show that its infringement of the private-school Plaintiffs’ rights is “narrowly tailored” to advance a “compelling” state interest. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533 (1993). “Stemming the spread of COVID-19 is unquestionably a compelling interest.” Diocese of Brooklyn, 141 S. Ct. at 67. The only question, therefore, is whether the State has shown that its broad prohibition of in-person education satisfies the narrow-tailoring requirement as a matter of law. It has not.
In Diocese of Brooklyn, the Supreme Court held that attendance caps of 10 and 25 people at indoor religious services in areas that were classified as having a high prevalence of Covid were not narrowly tailored. 141 S. Ct. at 67. As the Court explained, such caps were “more restrictive than any COVID–related
regulations” that the Court had upheld; they were “much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic”; and they were “far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus” at the relevant facilities. Id. The same points are applicable here. By prohibiting inperson instruction at the relevant Plaintiffs’ schools, California effectively imposed an attendance cap of zero, which is much more restrictive than the numerical caps struck down by the Supreme Court for religious services in Diocese of Brooklyn. 25 That alone confirms that California’s prohibition on in-person instruction is not sufficiently tailored. Moreover, Plaintiffs presented undisputed evidence that California’s broad and lengthy closure of schools was more severe than what many other jurisdictions have done, thereby further negating any suggestion that California adopted the least restrictive means of accomplishing its compelling interest. And Plaintiffs presented evidence that California had failed to narrowly tailor its response inasmuch as it stubbornly adhered to an overbroad school-closure order even as evidence mounted that Covid’s effects exhibit a significant age gradient, falling much more harshly on the elderly and having little impact, statistically speaking, on children...
Last edited:
