The judges state that loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for a minimal amount of time, causes irreparable harm. Below is the link to the case and a few notes by myself on the significance of the ruling and the language used by the judges.
Link to case:
Keywords:
Enjoin / enjoined in legal terms means: prohibit someone from performing (a particular action) by issuing an injunction.
Why this is a huge ruling:
Because it sets a precedent. That means anyone can now challenge restrictions under the same grounds because one case - a huge one, in the Supreme Court - has already been won. This is very important to know.
The entire legal system works off this basis - laws can be created by courts. Thresholds for things: such as when a Bill / Act states something like "so and so action may cause irreparable harm" - are set by the courts. This means: obviously, in the Act / Bill passed by the government "irreparable harm" may not be defined. Thresholds are not regularly defined within government bills (Acts in uk.....)
So what actions constitute "irreparable harm"? What actions constitute "discrimination"? These thresholds are all set by the courts.
And as we all know, the Supreme Court is, well, supreme. Meaning whatever thresholds they state, and set, are the law of the land - end of story. The government passes bills and acts but it's the courts who interpret them and give them meaning - give them a certain rigorous, or non-rigorous effect.
Brief explanation of what was held:
The judges held in no uncertain terms - quoting from Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) that "There can be no question that the challenged restrictions, if enforced, will cause irreparable harm. [']The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.[']”
This sentence is so critical - but it is not one solitary sentence in the entire ruling. The judgement was handed out "as a matter of urgency" and what is crucial here is the entire language of the case.
It sets a precedent because there now exists the potential to upend public health law during the current pandemic and afterward.
The Court’s eagerness to intervene even though New York’s orders were no longer in effect and its failure to "consider epidemiologic evidence"(skewed statistics) will serve as a warning that state orders can face the strictest of scrutiny.
My favourite closing quote:
"Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. 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. Before allowing this to occur, we have a duty to conduct a serious examination of the need for such a drastic measure.”
Many people posted on their social media, when trump was taken off Twitter, that "companies can not violate the first amendment": I already wrote about this here in my essay, The New Liberal.
There was a meme going around that said things along the lines of "why is everyone complaining that their first amendment rights are being violated when twitter is a private company" -- or something like that.
I truly hope that people will start educating themselves on history, landmark cases, and law. Just have a look at what the judges stated here: "The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." This is quoted from another case, from 1976, which sets a "threshold" or standard for "what amount" of "time" violating amendment rights constitutes "irreparable harm/injury".
I honestly can not believe that people who believe themselves to be "left wing" were touting and supporting the suppression of a political opponent, the suppression of free speech, and the suppression of dissenting opinions. What's worse, I can not believe that people actually think that private companies can not violate amendment rights.
Sometimes I truly wonder what people consider to be inalienable rights. And, if they don't consider freedom of speech an inalienable right, a right that can not be changed, amended, or stamped on in any way, then they simply do not understand the constitution or even the freedoms they are being given. They certainly do not appreciate them either. So Im not entirely sure those people even deserve them - some of us have fought tooth and nail to have them and these people will freely give them away to the highest bidder.
If people are happy for a private company to stamp on whatever amendments it chooses, they really are lost to what freedom and rights even are. People who think freedom of speech is a "grey area" subject to their personal political opinions and beliefs, are neither left wing, nor even accurately informed on basic fundamental rights and laws.
For once, it feels great to say I told you so. The Supreme Court just told you that infringing on the first amendment is unacceptable and the discussion will not be thrown out even in a "pandemic". There is never any excuse to take our rights away.
You are being sold back the freedoms you already had - take a stand.