In The Face Of Vaccine Mandates, The Supreme Court Fails To Protect Religious Liberty

This week, Blaze Media Senior Editor Daniel Horowitz wrote an opinion column lamenting the U.S. Supreme Court’s failure to uphold vaccine mandates’ exemptions based on religious liberty and years of relevant case law precedent.

According to Horowitz, two Trump appointees, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, have removed the last vestige of protection of individual rights enumerated in the Constitution, and red states should take the signal that it is up to conservative local governments to protect their citizens.

He cites recent decisions by Kavanaugh and Barrett as evidence that ordinary Americans have reduced to being forced to accept experimental medications and wearing masks even as hospitals can be forced to provide persons suffering from gender dysphoria medical castrations.

The Supreme Court ruled on October 29 in John Does 1-3 v. Mills by rejecting an emergency request for a restraining order protecting health care workers in Maine from mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations. The plaintiffs in the case had until Friday last week to comply or face being fired. Maine refused to allow for exemptions based on religious belief, clearly violating recent decisions from the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh and Barrett made up part of the majority of six Justices who refused to grant the restraining order.

Horowitz also cites how Barrett and Kavanaugh ruled in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. They both joined in an opinion that prevented a ruling that the government can only limit religious liberty in minimal circumstances. Instead, they allowed a looser interpretation of how religious exemptions to gay adoption mandates are enforced. Barrett seemed to ignore medical evidence about the side effects of the shots, including blood disorders.

He also describes how private corporations can join together with the federal government to terminate groups of people from employment or deny services. At the same time, individuals who attempt to exercise religious freedom have no “private business” rights.

Horowitz warns people living in red states that the federal court system shows that even when they enact state and local laws to protect religious liberty, their rights are not likely to be protected in federal court when challenged by leftists and progressives.