Here at Miletti Law, it is clear we do not shy away from hot button issues and topics. To be frank, our business basically attracts laisse faire, free market, small government libertarians who simply hate government intrusion on how they run their business and how they look to control and dominate every part of their lives. You can almost bet, if there is a way to tax and regulate it, you better believe that the government is on it.

Also, here at Miletti Law, we collectively hate Emperor Cuomo. As of the time of this blog, I am 38 years old, and in my 38 year long lifespan, never have I seen such a disgusting human being as the God King. Not going to lie—there was a point in time where I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and believed he had a heart inside that sloppy body with nipple rings, but now I realize that he is just a disgusting awful DICtator, who has a tremendous God complex, who can’t seem to take any criticism what-so-ever.

I mean—it isn’t like Emperor Cuomo didn’t sign 402 Executive Orders so far, with almost 100 since February 2020, and if the reporter was “paying attention” he would have known that the “orange zone law had been in place for over a month.” He probably expects that the reporter should be aware that he also signed about 20 executive orders during that same point in time—but its okay.. if only he was paying attention to the God King this would have never occurred because his orders are JUST SO CLEAR!

Well Jerkoff… you know who was paying attention during this time?  The Supreme Court.

On November 25, 2020, as predicted by the World Most Jacked Attorney, Your’s Truly, on November 8, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled against these sorts of restrictions 5-4. Go me.

Not going to lie—I thought I had Roberts in my corner, but it is clear he is living up to his Big Government Neo Con status since his being installed by Dubbya. Oddly enough, and no relation to me, he was succeeded by a lady named Patricia Millett—pretty close last name—one vowel off. Super cool.

Anywho, lets get down to it—

What Exactly Was the Holding as of 11/25/2020

Citation:  Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5708

In a 5-4 ruling, the Majority ruled in favor of the Dioceses, and against the Emperor.  But here is the thing with Supreme Court Opinions—you are never looking at just the final ruling… rather, you need to read through the reasoning, as the reasoning is what is key, because for better or worse in this Country, we have followed a doctrine of Judicial Finality, and ever since Cooper v. Aaron in 1958, the interpretation of the Constitution, as rendered by the Supreme Court, is the supreme law of the land.

See  Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401, 3 L. Ed. 2d 19, 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1939, 79 Ohio L. Abs. 462

Be prepared for a story.. but for those of you who don’t like reading, just learn these 6 rules:

  1. If you signal out one protected class, you are not a neutral law.
  2. You probably want to stop demarcating between “essential” and “non-essential”
  3. If the impact of a restriction is unduly harsh on a protected class, you are subject to “strict scrutiny”
  4. If you want to pass the “strict scrutiny” test, you need to show that the regulation is “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling state interest” otherwise they fail.
  5. Even God King Emperor Cuomo must be held to some standard of proof!
  6. Just because you change the law, doesn’t meet the matter is moot—mootness will look to see if the risk, fear and tension is still there!

Others who like my rants—by all means, please continue. 😊

So here we go—to begin, here are the big takeaways:

One. Regulations That Single Out Religious Institutions Cannot Be Perceived As “neutral”

The big idea is that the Court ruled that the regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.

Two. The City Needs to Be Very Careful Who is Deems “essential” and “non-essential” Because This Draws a Very Hard Line in the Sand, and in of Itself Creates a Harsh Impact.

Another thing to notice—the City shoots itself in the foot trying to distinguish between that which is “essential” and “non-essential.” The Court took issue with the fact that acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, and garages are considered “essential” and Churches, Synagogues and places of worship, for whatever reason, were not.

What is key to note here is that the only reason why they selected acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, and garages as the counterpoints is not because they share similar qualities, but they were showing the variety of secular establishments that are considered “essential,” as opposed to places of worship, which are not for whatever reason, and how it unduly burdened religious establishments.

Simply because these restrictions are not neutral, that they are of general applicability, they are to satisfy the “strict scrutiny” standard.

Three. if the Impact of a Restriction is Not Neutral, and Are Unduly Harsh Against the Religious Institution, They Are Subject to “strict Scrutiny”

The Court was clear—

Stemming the spread of COVID-19 is unquestionably a compelling interest, but it is hard to see how the challenged regulations can be regarded as “narrowly tailored.”

While a compelling interest, the regulations are not narrowly tailored.

FOUR. TO PASS STRICT SCRUTINY, YOUR REGULATIONS MUST BE NARROWLY TAILORED AND SERVE A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST. IF THEY ARE NOT NARROWLY TAILORED, THEY WILL FAIL.

Here, the Court comments allude to the suggestion that if there are “other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk,” then it is clear that the current regulations are NOT narrowly tailored.  The Court teased about the 10 people requirement when a Church can comfortably seat 700. The big idea, if there is a less restrictive rule that could be adopted to minimize the risk, and address the compelling interest, then let’s not get it twisted—YOUR RULE IS NOT NARROWLY TAILORED!! 

But the best line for me…

“…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.”

I also enjoy that the Court told the Emperor to prove his case—which as expected, he wasn’t able to prove shit.

“Not only is there no evidence that the applicants have contributed to the spread of COVID-19 but there are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services.”

Five. The Government Will Need to Prove Their Case, as to Why They Need to Take Such Draconian Measures!

More sexiness…

“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347, 373 (1976)

Let this sink in people…

THE LOSS OF FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS, EVEN FOR A SECOND, IS AN IRREPARABLE INJURY!!!!!

Now, this is CRITICAL for us. See… there is something called “mootness.” When you are suing Big Brother, there is a concept called “mootness.” The doctrine tells us that if the subject matter of a case (i.e. the shitty law) is not in effect, it is considered “moot” and any further legal proceedings will have no effect, so it is “beyond the reach of the law.”

The Emperor tried to do this to the Fitness Coalition group when the first lawsuit was levied against him (rest assured, the Gyms are still banging this guy around). Recall when he handed down the responsibility for enforcement of restrictions to localities back on October—this was a problem because now the matter was moot—it wasn’t only the Emperor, but now the localities were causing the issue as well. Of course, the Emperor being the jerk he is, coerced them into doing this by withholding funding if they didn’t enforce, and it certainly wasn’t done for any other reason but more control and manipulation, but the big idea is the Supreme Court was ready for his shit this time around. 

The Emperor tried that game again.. and after the Dioceses filed for the injunction, the Emperor reclassified the areas in question from orange to yellow, and this change means that the applicants may hold services at 50% of their maximum occupancy.

The dissenters harped on this, but the Majority was not hearing it this time around…why?

Simple—it was clear that this matter was not moot and injunctive relief was still called for because the Dioceses remained under a constant threat that the area in question will be reclassified as red or orange. The Emperor regularly changes the classification of particular areas without prior notice, so they are under constant tension and fear.

There was no reason why they (the Dioceses) should bear the risk of suffering further irreparable harm in the event of another reclassification.

Six. if There is Still the Constant Tension and Fear of the Subject Matter at Hand Causing Irreparable Harm, Then It is Not Moot—the Must Still Be Addressed if the Fear is Still Out There.

Checkmate bitch.

BUT WAIT, THERE IS MORE!!

So while not the Opinion, there is the concurrence by Justice Gorsuch. This man will deliver the opinion against Jacobson. Mark my words.

The Emperor continuously harps on Jacobson as the case to grant him all the powers in the world.. but the man (if you can even call him that) is a fool.

According to Gorsuch, Jacobson hardly supports cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic. That decision involved an entirely different mode of analysis, an entirely different right, and an entirely different kind of restriction.

To Gorsuch, Jacobson applied what would become the traditional legal test associated with the right at issue—exactly what the Court is doing today. Here, that means strict scrutiny: The First Amendment traditionally requires a State to treat religious exercises at least as well as comparable secular activities unless it can meet the demands of strict scrutiny—showing it has employed the most narrowly tailored means available to satisfy a compelling state interest. Church of Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 546.

In a Nutshell, This is Not F***ing Jacobson and Stop Using It for What is Happening Today!!!

In Jacobson, individuals could (1) accept the vaccine, (2) pay the fine, or (3) identify a basis for exemption. The imposition on Mr. Jacobson’s claimed right to bodily integrity, thus, was avoidable and relatively modest.

Today, the Emperor has effectively sought to ban all traditional forms of worship in affected “zones” whenever the Governor decrees and for as long as he chooses.

Nothing in Jacobson purported to address, let alone approve, such serious and long-lasting intrusions into settled constitutional rights. In fact, Jacobson explained that the challenged law survived only because it did not “contravene the Constitution of the United States” or “infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument.”

Just a simply fantastic ruling… Orgasmic. Exciting. Wonderful. I would read this to my God Daughter as a bed time story.

But alas—because everyone is afraid of the sniffling little DICtator, here comes the Dioceses with this nonsense… we “pledge to continue working with the state to combat the pandemic.”

The Director of Communications, Dennis Poust, for the Dioceses said immediately thereafter:

“While we believe, and the Court agreed, that the ‘hot zone’ restrictions on religious gatherings were unduly harsh, our churches have been otherwise eager partners with the state in protecting the health of our parishioners, clergy, staff, and surrounding communities during this devastating pandemic.”

You are a fool. A complete fool. Nothing says “lets kill all our momentum” like obsessive accommodation and compliance.

It is interesting how fast we forget the lessons of time. How fast the Diocese goes back to “eating the fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden” Genesis 3:3. 

The fight goes on…

The Emperor will soon be shown to have no clothes. I promise.