Why Didn't COVID-19 Kill the Constitution?

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

58% : He reversed that position after the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a lawsuit arguing that Wolf's closure order exceeded his legal powers and violated various constitutional provisions, including the right to arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment and Article I, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
50% : According to these precedents, COVID-19 regulations that impinged on religious freedom were nevertheless consistent with the First Amendment when the distinctions they drew had a plausible public health rationale.
50% : But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion.
45% : Based on the evidence and the relevant case law, the 11th Circuit said, Thompson "was permitted" to conclude that the state's regulations imposed an "undue burden" on access to abortion, which the Supreme Court has said violates the 14th Amendment.
44% : In February, when the Court blocked enforcement of new California restrictions that banned indoor religious services in most of the state, Roberts was finally persuaded that it was time to intervene.
44% : Barker concluded that blocking enforcement of rent obligations exceeds the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce.
44% : They added that "the suspension model is based upon the oft-unsubstantiated assertion that 'ordinary' judicial review will be too harsh on government actions in a crisis" -- a notion that seems misguided given that "the principles of proportionality and balancing driving most modern constitutional standards permit greater incursions into civil liberties in times of greater communal need."
41% : To Alito's dismay, most of his colleagues on the Court initially closed their eyes to the impact that COVID-19 regulations had on religious freedom.
39% : Disputes involving the Second Amendment, access to abortion, and religious freedom have made it clear that an epidemic is not a license to ignore constitutional rights.
37% : Should constitutional constraints on government action be suspended in times of emergency," asked American University law professor Lindsay Wiley and University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck, "or do constitutional doctrines forged in calmer times adequately accommodate exigent circumstances?"
36% : Unlike the closure of gun stores, which mostly ended without judicial orders, pandemic-related restrictions on abortion were repeatedly rejected by federal courts.
35% : According to a tally by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 11 states initially treated abortion as a nonessential or elective medical procedure, meaning it was banned during those states' lockdowns.
27% : While Roberts seemed torn between respect for religious liberty and deference to elected officials, Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor showed no such ambivalence.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.