| Basic information | Substance of the ruling | Accessibility of the case and further relevant links | |||||||
| Date | Name of the case (or case number) | The body delivering the decision | Keywords, topic | Executive part | Brief summary | Full text | Page at the website of the issuing court | Page in other databases | Unofficial materials, press communications |
| May 13. 2024. | 23-722 | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Rights of prisoners; right to remedy | The Supreme Court of the United States rejected the petition of prison officials to be exempted from being sued due to their measures taken against the first waves of the Covid-19 pandemic. | Several contaminations of the Covid-19 pandemic have been registered in a Californian prison, some of the affected persons even died. The prison authorities decided to move from the affected prison several inmates to an other prison without higher number of cases until that date. As a consequence, Covid-19 quickly spread also in the new prison, where it also caused deaths. The survivors and family members of dead prison inmates turned to the judiciary for seeking remedy against the allegedly unlawful measures, however, prison officials argued that they should not be sued due to their qualified immunity. Qualified immunity means that a police or a prison official shall not be sued unless he/she knowingly violated a clearly established right. The lower courts rejected the qualified immunity argument, then, prison officials turned to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The Supreme Court also rejected the applicability of qualified immunity concept for this case, and allowed for the lower courts to hear the merits of survivor's and family members' claims. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-722/294563/20231229154301412_Diaz%20v.%20Polanco%20-%20Petition%20for%20a%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari%20Final.pdf | https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/diaz-v-polanco/ | https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-05-13/supreme-court-denies-californias-plea-for-immunity-for-covid-19-deaths-at-san-quentin | |
| April 1, 2024. | 23-665, Goede v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Vaccination; labour law; freedom of religion | The Supreme Court of the United States of America rejected the appeal of a woman against the decision of the Minnesota Employment Authority to deny her unemployment benefits because her objection against vaccination was not based on religious beliefs. | A woman from Wisconsin refused to be vaccinated on religious grounds, therefore, she was dismissed from her position. The Wisconsin Employment Authority denied her request for unemployment benefits, because it was considered that the refusal of the vaccination was based on the lack of trust rather than religious beliefs. The woman turned to the judiciary, but her claim was rejected by the lower courts. The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the assessment of the lower courts and argued that the effectiveness of the vaccination campaign should prevail over the religious freedom. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-665/293570/20231218121700516_231212a%20Petition%20for%20efiling.pdf | https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mn-court-of-appeals/2204436.html | https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/04/01/supreme-court-covid-vaccine-religious-beliefs/73143557007/ | |
| March 15, 2024. | 22-611 Lindke v. Freed | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Freedom of expression; right to privacy | The Supreme Court of the United States of America established a new standard for government officials to block comments on their social media pages. Under the new test, officials are considered to have engaged in governmental action if they had "actual authority to speak on behalf of the state on a particular matter" and "purported to exercise that authority in the relevant posts." | A person from Michigan shared critical comments on the social media page of a city manager concerning his activities combatting the Covid-19 pandemic. The social media page clearly identified the city manager as a public figure. The city manager blocked the claimants' comments and turned to the judiciary which sued the claimant and agreed with the city manager. Then, the claimant turned to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which reversed the lower court decisions and ordered the lower courts to revisit the case. In the meantime, the Supreme Court established a new standard for public officials to block comments on their social media accounts. This aimed at strucking a proper balance between the rights of individuals to access public information and to express their views from matters of public interest; and the right to privacy of public figures. Under the new test, officials are considered to have engaged in governmental action if they had "actual authority to speak on behalf of the state on a particular matter" and "purported to exercise that authority in the relevant posts." | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf | https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-throws-out-rulings-public-officials-blocking-social-media-2024-03-15/ | ||
| December 11. 2023. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Vaccination | The Supreme Court of the United States of America dismissed three challenges against the vaccination mandates imposed on Government officials and military personnels during the public health emergency. | The Byden Administration imposed vaccination mandate on Government officials and military personnels during the public health emergency, however, this was challenged by several public servants before the judiciary. The lower courts upheld the claims even if the contested regulations had been repealed before revealing these decisions. The lower court decisions prevented the Byden Administration from potentially reinstate these challenged measures. The Byden Administration turned to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which overruled the lower court judgements and ordered to revise and dismiss these cases before the lower courts. The Federal Government has the potential authority to implement similar measures in the future accordingly. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121123zor_e29g.pdf |
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/11/politics/supreme-court-throws-out-cases-over-federal-covid-19-vaccine-mandates-for-executive-branch-employees-and-troops/index.html; https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2023/12/supreme-court-vacates-ruling-restricting-presidents-right-issue-federal-workforce-mandates/392636/ |
|||
| November 13. 2023. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Vaccination | The Supreme Court of the United States of America rejected a challenge of four nurses against the Covid-19 vaccination mandate imposed by the State of New Jersey on healthcare workers. | The State of New Jersey ordered that healthcare workers could not continue their work unless they would be vaccinated against Covid-19 until a certain date. Four nurses challenged this policy before the judiciary, however, the complaint was rejected by the lower courts. The Supreme Court of the United States of America upheld these decisions and declined to hear the challenge of the four nurses in its substance. | https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2023/11/us-supreme-court-wont-hear-covid-vaccine-case-filed-by-nj-nurses.html;
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-new-jersey-vaccine-mandate |
||||
| October 13. 2023. | No. 3:22-CV-01213, Missouri v. Byden | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Freedom of expression; freedom of information | The Supreme Court of the United States of America upheld a federal court order blocking lower court rulings imposing strict restrictions on the Byden administration to communicate with social media platform providers concerning the removal of misinformation related to the elections, Covid-19 and other crucial matters of public interest. | The states of Louisiana and Missouri filed a lawsuit against the Government of the United States of America by alleging the violation of free speech by the governmental practice of consulting with social media platform providers from the removal of misinformation concerning elections, Covid-19 pandemic and other crucial topics with public interest. The claimants argued that this practice in the reality aims at removing unwanted oppositional speech from the social media and amounts to cenzorship. The lower courts agreed with the claimants and provided preliminary injunction prohibiting such consultations, however, the federal court acknowledged the role of these collaboration in the filtering of misinformation, therefore, the prohibition was narrowed to a certain forms of these discussions. This approach was also shared by the Supreme Court of the United States of America which upheld the preliminary injunction of the federal court and partially permitted the consultations. | https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/biden-v-missouri/ | https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-temporarily-blocks-order-curbing-biden-social-media-contacts-2023-10-13/ | ||
| December 27. 2022. | No. 22A544 (22–592) ARIZONA, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Freedom of movement | The Supreme Court of the United States of America upheld the policy of the Trump administration to deport migrants from the Mexican border on public health grounds despite the counter intentions of the Biden administration. | The Trump administration introduced a deportation policy from the Mexican border for migrants from Central-America on public health grounds. This was lifted by the Biden administration in April 2022. due to the more favourable public health circumstances. However, republican politicians challenged this decision before the judiciary since they alleged a huge risk of increasing the rise of the Covid-19 pandemic and also the emerge of a new migration vawe at the southern borders. The Supreme Court with an 5-4 ruling agreed with the claimants and granted the emergency request to reinstate the deportation policy implemented by the Trump administration. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22a544_n758.pdf | https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/27/supreme-court-extends-trump-era-pandemic-immigration-rules-to-allow-quicker-deportations.html | ||
| November 10. 2022. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Freedom of religion; vaccination mandate | Justice Sotomayor as a member of the Supreme Court of the United States rejected a claim of New York public servants to block the Covid-19 vaccination mandate imposed by the city of New York on its employees. | The City of New York ordered the mandatory vaccination of its employees during the public health emergency, and several public servants challenged the constitutionality of this measure before the Supreme Court of the United States of America by alleging the infringement of religious freedom as well as discrimination on religious grounds. Justice Sotomayor as a single judge rejected to take up the claim. | https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-courts-sotomayor-rejects-challenge-ny-covid-vaccine-mandate-2022-11-10/ | ||||
| August 29. 2022. | 22-570, Anthony Marciano v. Eric Adams | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Vaccination mandate, right to work | Justice Sotomayor as a single judge of the United States of America rejected a challenge against the enforcement of the mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policy ordered by the city of New York. | The applicant was a public servant in New York city who challenged the validity of the mandatory vaccination policy imposed by the city of New York on its employees. The lower courts rejected his bid, however, he turned to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The applicant was still in active duty during the hearing of his appeal, however, several other public servants were fired by the city of New York due to the non-compliance of the vaccination requirement. The claim was rejected, and the validity of the vaccination mandate of New York city was confirmed. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22a178.html | https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-courts-sotomayor-keeps-new-york-city-covid-vaccine-mandate-2022-08-29/ | ||
| February 18. 2022. | No. 21A, Doe v. San Diego School | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Mandatory vaccination; freedom of religion; right to education | The Supreme Court of the United States rejected to hear a challenge against a mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policy ordered by the Unified School District of San Diego. | The Unified School District of San Diego ordered the mandatory vaccination of teachers and students over 16 to attend classes in person and also extra-curricular activities. The claimants challenged the constitutionality of this measure which was not admitted by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The School District already delayed the implementation of the contested measure which does not justify its urgent review. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A217/204736/20211210134036030_Doe%20v.%20SDUSD%20emergency%20application--FINAL.pdf | https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/story/2022-02-19/u-s-supreme-court-declines-emergency-order-in-san-diego-schools-vaccine-mandate-case | ||
| January 13. 2022. | 21A240 Biden v. Missouri | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Vaccination; labor law; discrimination | The Supreme Court of the United States strucked down the mandatory vaccination policy imposed by the Byden administration for employers employing more than 100 persons. | The Supreme Court of the United States of America blocked the implementation of the mandatory vaccination policy imposed on employers employing more than 100 workers. The Supreme Court held that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has been authorized to regulate occupational dangers, however, public health issues such as mandatory vaccination fall beyond the limits of this competence. Moreover, the differentiation between employers employing more or less than 100 workers were arbitrary, therefore, lacked rational basis and amounted to discrimination. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf |
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-vaccine-mandate.html; https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/1072165393/supreme-court-blocks-bidens-vaccine-or-test-mandate-for-large-private-companies |
||
| January 13. 2022. | National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 21A244. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Vaccination; labor law; discrimination | The Supreme Court of the United States of America upheld the constitutionality of the mandatory vaccination requirement imposed by the Byden Administration on the employees of health care providers receiving federal fund. | The Supreme Court of the United States of America upheld the constitutionality of the mandatory vaccination requirement imposed on employees of health care providers receiving federal fund. The Supreme Court argued that preventing the transmission of infectious diseases constitutes a basic professional principle of providing health care services, therefore, the state interference was reasonable within the extraordinary public health challenges. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf | https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-vaccine-mandate.html;
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/1072165393/supreme-court-blocks-bidens-vaccine-or-test-mandate-for-large-private-companies |
||
| January 13. 2022. | 21A241 Human Services v. LOUISIANA | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Vaccination; labor law | The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the validity of a vaccination mandate imposed by the Byden Administration on employees of healthcare institutions receiving federal funding. | The Occupational Safety Health Authority ordered a mandatory vaccination policy for the employees of healthcare institutions receiving federal funding to combat the Covid-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court of the United states ruled that the Congress undoubtedly authorized the Occupational Safety Health Authority to regulate public health matters, and the Authority remained within the constitutional limits of this authorization and made reasonable decision. The Supreme Court argued that the measure aimed at protecting the patients exposed to healthcare institutions, while similar requirements have been already ordered before the global pandemic within the public health sector. As a consequence, the impugned measure was upheld, while the claim was rejected. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf |
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-vaccine-mandate.html; https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/1072165393/supreme-court-blocks-bidens-vaccine-or-test-mandate-for-large-private-companies |
||
| December 13. 2021. | No. 142 S.Ct. 552 | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Freedom of religion; right to privacy; discrimination; separation of powers | The Supreme Court of the United States of America dismissed a claim of public health workers against the vaccination mandate imposed by the City of New York. | The City of New York ordered that public health employers shall secure the full vaccination of their employees during the public health emergency. Exceptions were provided on medical grounds, but not on religious grounds. Some public health workers challenged this rule before the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which dismissed the request for injunctive relief. The Supreme Court considered, that the arguments of the claimants alleging the violation of freedom of religion; right to non-discrimination and right to privacy were not sufficiently founded, while no strong evidence was provided that the local regulation of New York City was in conflict with the federal law. Therefore, the request for injunctive relief was dismissed. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a145_gfbi.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/united-states-america-supreme-court-united-states-no-142-sct-552-2021-12-13 | ||
| December 1. 2021. | FDA v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, No. 20A34 | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Abortion | The Supreme Court of the United States of America held that blocking the ban on delivering abortion-related pills by mail should be unconstitutional, therefore, the lower court should hear the case again to revise its ruling. | In the United States of America, the mail delivery of pills used for abortion was banned, these medicines shall have been picked up in person. However, a lower court blocked the application of this prohibition during the Covid-19 pandemic, which was contested by the Food and Drug Administration before the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The Supreme Court upheld the claim of the FDA and ordered the lower court to hear the case again, holding the unlimited permission of mail delivery unconstitutional even during the public health emergency. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a34_3f14.pdf | https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/food-and-drug-administration-v-american-college-of-obstetricians-and-gynecologists/ | ||
| October 29. 2021. | 21A90, Does v. Mills | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Freedom of religion; discrimination; privacy | The Supreme Court of the United States of America denied a request for injunctive relief against a mandatory vaccination requirement prescribed by Maine for public health workers. | The State of Maine ordered a mandatory vaccination requirement for public health workers with medical but without religious exceptions. Some public health employees contested this decision before a lower court, which dismissed the claim. Then, claimants turned to the Supreme Court of the United States of America by a request for injunctive relief, which was rejected by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered, that the claimants failed to demonstrate convincingly the alleged violation of freedom of religion, right to non-discrimination and right to privacy. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a90_6j37.pdf | https://www.networkforphl.org/resources/does-v-mills/ | ||
| September 30. 2021. | Maniscalco v. New York City Department of Education, No. 21A50. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Vaccination; right to education; discrimination | The Supreme Court of the United States of America denied a request for injunctive relief against imposing the vaccination mandate ordered by the City of New York for the employees of public schools. | New York City ordered that public school employees shall be put on unpaid leave unless receive at least one dose of vaccination until October 1. 2021 on the ground that these employees work together with a great number of children on a daily basis. Several teachers challenged this requirement and argued that the enforcement of this order would threaten the maintenance of in-person education, while the impugned measure also amounts to a discriminatory treatment against the public school employees. The lower courts rejected the request for preliminary injunction, so the claimants turned to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which upheld the lower court rulings and also denied the request. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21A50.html | https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/rachel-maniscalco-v-new-york-city-department-of-education/ | https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/09/new-york-city-public-school-employees-ask-court-to-block-vaccine-mandate/ | |
| August 26. 2021 | ALABAMA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL, No. 21A23, 594 U. S. ____ (2021) 1. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Eviction moratorium; right to property; separation of powers | The Supreme Court of the United States of America turned down an eviction moratorium ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to compensate the harms caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. | The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States of America ordered an eviction moratorium for residential, non-commercial properties and then extended its duration due to the economic hardships caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Landlords contested this decision before the lower courts, which upheld their claims and blocked the application of this measure, however, lessees turned to the Supreme Court to set this ruling aside. The Supreme Court of the United States of America upheld the contested ruling and maintained the block on eviction moratorium, because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention overstepped its competences when issued such a decision. However, the Supreme Court called the Congress to enact appropriate legislation from eviction moratorium which might be reasonable during the public health emergency. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf |
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2021-september/supreme-court-strikes-down-the-cdc/; https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/us/eviction-moratorium-ends.html |
||
| June 25. 2021. | Yellen v. Confederated Tribes Of Chehalis Reservation, no. 20-543. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Rights of indigenous people | The Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled, that Alaska native corporations shall be seen as equivalent with federally recognized tribal governments. | In the 1970s, 12 native corporations were organised in Alaska as for profit companies to operate businesses and services to generate revenue for the Indigenous communities. In Alaska these entities replace most functions of the federally recognized tribal governments known in other member states of the USA. In the light of the hardships caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, several funds have been allocated to the Indigenous communities, and a significant portion of these funds were separated for Alaska native corporations. Several tribal governments turned to the judiciary to exclude the native corporations from these funds, as these entities shall not be subject to the same treatment as federally recognized tribal governments. The district court rejected the claim, however, the federal court granted it and held, that native corporations shall be clearly distinguished from federally recognized tribal governments, therefore, it shall not be entitled to Covid-19-related funds allocated for tribal governments. Then, the case was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which called the federal court to hear the case again and to review its earlier ruling, because native corporations shall enjoy the same benefits as tribal governments, therefore, funds were separated for them reasonably. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-543_3e04.pdf | https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-543 | ||
| June 1. 2021. | Denver Bible Church v. Polis, 20A163. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Freedom of religion; freedom of gathering | The Supreme Court of the United States of America turned down a request for injunctive relief by two Colorado churches submitted against the enforcement of public health restrictions limiting religious practices. | The State of Colorado ordered several public health restrictions which also limited the number of participants in religious gatherings and also imposed the duty of distance keeping and mask wearing during these ceremonies. Two churches contested this regulation before the lower courts but their claims were dismissed, therefore, they turned to the Supreme Court of the United States of America with a request for injunctive relief. The Supreme Court dismissed the request because it found the impugned measure constitutional under the strict scrutiny review. | https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/denver-bible-church-v-polis/ | https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/gorsuch-turns-down-colorado-churches-request-to-block-covid-restrictions/ | ||
| April 9. 2021. | Tandon v. Newsom, No. 20A151. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Freedom of expression; freedom of religion; freedom of assembly; discrimination | The Supreme Court of the United States of America blocked the application of restrictions on in-home religious gatherings in California. | Due to the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic, California restricted in-home bible studies and prayer meetings up to a maximum of 3 households in the most infected areas. A pastor challenged this decision before the lower courts, which was dismissed. Then, he turned to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which upheld the claim and blocked the application of the impugned measure. The Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny review and considered that the regulation made an irrational differentiation between secular and religious activities, therefore, it was unconstitutional. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A151/175269/20210408143550366_Tandon%20v.%20Newsom%20- | https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/tandon-v-newsom/ |
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/us/supreme-court-coronavirus-prayer-meetings.html; https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/divided-court-blocks-californias-covid-related-restrictions-on-in-home-religious-gatherings/ |
|
| February 5. 2021. | South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 20A136. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Freedom of religion; freedom of expression; freedom of assembly; discrimination | The Supreme Court of the United States of America provided injunctive relief against Covid-related restrictions on religious ceremonies in California and blocked the application of the impugned measures. | The Governor of California imposed a ban on indoor religious ceremonies, indoor singing and chanting in the territories of California most affected by the global pandemic. A church subject to these restrictions contested this decision before the lower courts, which turned down the requests for preliminary injunction. Then, claimants turned to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which partially upheld their request and blocked the application of the impugned ban on indoor religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court considered that this measure were not sufficiently narrowly tailored, while an irrational differentiation was made between secular and religious activities. However, the ban on indoor singing and chanting was not blocked. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf | https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/south-bay-united-pentecostal-church-v-newsom/ | https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/613/covid-19-and-the-first-amendment-a-running-report-dec-18 | |
| November 25. 2020. | Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 20A87. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Freedom of expression; freedom of religion; freedom of assembly; discrimination | The Supreme Court of the United States of America blocked the application of Covid-related restrictions of religious ceremonies imposed by the City of New York. | The Governor of New York ordered that due to the public health concerns, religious ceremonies should be limited to 10 persons in the "red" area, to 25 persons in the "orange area" and to 50 persons in the "yellow area" while less demanding restrictions were also ordered outside from these zones. Two churches subject to this regulation contested this decision before the lower courts, but their request for injunctive relief was dismissed. Then, they turned to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which upheld their claim and provided the preliminary injunction, the implementation of the impugned measure was blocked. The Supreme Court held that the contested regulation lacked a minimum level of neutrality and made irrational differentiation between secular and religious activities. Moreover, the contested measure caused an irreparable harm for the religious communities, while the link between the rise of the pandemic and the attendance of religious worships was not convincingly justified, therefore, the injunctive relief was provided and the implementation of the impugned measure was blocked. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf | https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-blocks-covid-19-restrictions-on-church-attendance-in-new-york-11606369004?mod=article_inline; https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20A87 | ||
| November 16. 2020. | Valentine v. Collier, 20A70, 141 S.Ct. 57 (Mem),208 L.Ed.2d 415. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Rights of prisoners; rights of disabled persons; discrimination; criminal law | The Supreme Court of the United States of America denied to reinstate a lower court order imposing the duty on a Texas prison to take specific steps for the protection of prisoners during the public health emergency. | Two prisoners from Texas filed a claim before the lower courts to request preliminary injunction ordering specific steps for their protection on behalf of the prison authorities. The lower courts granted the application, however, the appellate court dismissed the claim and denied the application. The Supreme Court of the United States of America agreed with the appellate court and did not provide preliminary injunction in favour of the prisoners because it was not demonstrated convincingly that the protective measures implemented by the prison authorities were insufficient. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a70_new_086c.pdf | https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/valentine-v-collier-no-895536556 | ||
| October 28. 2020. | Moore v. Circosta, 592 U. S. ____ (2020) 1 | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Right to vote | The Supreme Court of the United States of America rejected to block the extension of postal voting deadline in North Carolina until the ninth day after the election day. | In North Carolina, the State Electoral Board agreed to extend the deadline of postal voting from the third day before the elections until the ninth day after the election day due to the delays of postal deliveries during the public health emergency. The lower courts rejected to block this extension, which was contested before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court rulings and dismissed the request for injunctive relief. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a72_5hek.pdf | https://www.scotusblog.com/election-litigation/moore-v-circosta/ | https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-court-northcarolina-idUSKBN27D3DR | |
| October 26. 2020. | Committee v. Wisconsin State Legislature, 20A66. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Right to vote | The Supreme Court of the United States of America rejected a request to block the extension of postal voting deadline in Wisconsin after the election day. | The Governor of Wisconsin ordered the extension of postal voting deadline due to the delays in postal deliveries during the public health emergency. This decision was contested before the lower courts, which upheld the impugned measure. Then, claimants turned to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which also found the contested measure constitutional, therefore, the request for injunctive relief was dismissed. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a66.html |
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/democratic-national-committee-v-wisconsin-state-legislature/; https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20A66; https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/589/19a1016/ |
||
| October 21. 2020. | Merrill v. People First of Alabama, 20A67. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Right to vote, rights of disabled persons | The Supreme Court of the United States of America held that the ban on curbside voting in Alabama was constitutional even during the public health emergency. | The ban on curbside voting was ordered in Alabama during the Covid-19 pandemic to maintain electoral integrity, however, this was challenged by several disabled voters and voters with high risk of contamination. The lower courts blocked the ban on curbside voting and ordered Alabama to allow this kind of vote submission. However, the Supreme Court stayed this federal court ruling and authorized Alabama to restore the ban on curbside voting. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a67_3e04.pdf | https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/merrill-v-people-first-of-alabama/ | https://www.npr.org/2020/10/21/926472968/supreme-court-blocks-curbside-voting-in-alabama-an-option-during-pandemic | |
| October 13. 2020. | Ross v. National Urban League, 20A62, | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Census | The Supreme Court of the United States of America rejected a request for preliminary injunction against terminating the 2020. census on October 31. 2020. | The Covid-19 pandemic disrupted the 2020. census in the United States of America, and the census Bureau decided to suspend its activities in April 2020. The original plan was to extend the final deadline of the census due to the public health concerns, however, in August 2020. the Trump administration decided to finish the census within the original deadline no later than October 31. 2020. Several experts warned that this rush would cause inaccurate census outcomes, nevertheless, the accelerated census was continued. Various stakeholders contested this decision before the lower courts, which granted preliminary injunction against the Census Bureau and ordered the extension of the final census deadline due to the public health challenges and the delays caused by the extraordinary circumstances. The Federal Court partially upheld the blocking of the accelerated census, therefore, the Trump Administration turned to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction and ordered, that the census should be closed until October 31. 2023. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a62_n7ip.pdf | https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ross-v-national-urban-league/;
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/national-urban-league-v-ross |
||
| October 8. 2020. | Andino v. Middleton, No. 20A55. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Right to vote | The Supreme Court of the United States of America held that requiring a signature from a witness on the absentee vote envelops was constitutional even during the public health emergency. | In South Carolina, a signature from a witness has been required on the envelope of absentee votes, which was challenged by several voters during the public health emergency on public health grounds, and by alleging the limited impact of this requirement on the promotion of electoral integrity. The lower courts upheld the claims and barred South Carolina from enforcing the witness requirement during the public health emergency, however, the authorities of South Carolina turned to the Supreme Court of the United States of America because of the amendment of electoral rules by judicial means shortly before the elections. The Supreme Court of the United States of America stayed the lower court ruling and reinstated the witness requirement in South Carolina. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a55_dc8e.pdf | https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/10/justices-reinstate-witness-requirements-for-absentee-ballots/ | ||
| August 5. 2020. | Barnes v. Ahlman, No. 20A19. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Rights of prisoners | The Supreme Court of the United States of America stayed a federal court order requiring from the prisons of the Orange County (California) to implement social distance, and to distribute regular Covid-19 tests and other protective equipments amongst the prison population. | Several prison inmates from the Orange County (California) turned to the courts with a request for preliminary injunction against the prison authorities of that county, because the public health requirements were not dully enforced during the Covid-19 pandemic, which caused excessive harm especially for the more vulnerable groups of prisoners. The lower courts granted the requested injunctive relief, however, the authorities of Orange County turned to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which stayed the lower court ruling and did not impose additional duties of prison authorities during the public health emergency. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/20a19_k537.pdf | https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20A19 | https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-08-05/supreme-court-blocks-mandate-requiring-better-coronavirus-protections-for-o-c-inmates | |
| July 30. 2020. | Little v. Reclaim Idaho, No. 20A18. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Right to vote | The Supreme Court of the United States of America stayed a federal court ruling allowing the signature of electronic signatures for an NGO initiating a referendum in Idaho during the Covid-19 pandemic. | An NGO in Idaho initiated a referendum during the public health emergency from the introduction of a new tax to provide additional funds for the educational system. However, in the light of the public health challenges, the NGO suspended its in-person activities and focused its endeavors to collect electronic signatures. However, the Idaho authorities did not accept electronic signatures, therefore, the NGO could not further with its referendum initiative, therefore, it turned to the courts with a request for injunctive relief. The lower courts granted the preliminary injunction and called the Idaho authorities to accept electronic signatures or to extend the deadline for the collection of in-person signatures to initiate the referendum. Then, the Governor of Idaho turned to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which stayed the preliminary injunction and upheld the exclusion of electronic signatures. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/20a18_f2qg.pdf | https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20A18 | https://www.edweek.org/education/high-court-blocks-electronic-signature-gathering-for-idaho-education-initiative/2020/07 | |
| July 24. 2020. | Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, No. 19A1070. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Freedom of religion; discrimination | The Supreme Court of the United States of America rejected to block an order in Nevada to limit the religious ceremonies to 50 persons, while secular businesses could run with the 50% of their capacity. | A religious community from Daiton, Nevada turned to the judiciary because an order of the local authorities limited the number of participants in religious ceremonies to 50 persons, while during the same period, secular businesses were allowed to operate with the 50% of their capacity. The claimants argued that this measure meant an unconstitutional violation of freedom of religion and right to equality, therefore, an injunctive relief was requested to block the applicability of the impugned order. The Nevada authorities argued, that the risk of contamination should be higher in religious ceremonies, where people spend together a longer period in comparison with secular activities. The lower courts denied the request, therefore, claimants turned to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which also upheld the lower court ruling and rejected the request. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1070_08l1.pdf | https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/calvary-chapel-dayton-valley-v-steve-sisolak/ | ||
| June 4. 2020. | Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, no. 19A1016. | Supreme Court of the United States of America | Right to vote | The Supreme Court of the United States of America held that the judicial extension of absentee voting deadline in Wisconsin was unconstitutional. | Several voters in Wisconsin challenged the decision of local authorities to classify all absentee votes arriving after the day of elections as postmarked and requested the judicial extension of the deatline set for the submission of absentee votes. The claimants referred to the additional difficulties caused by the global pandemic, and also to the uncertainties of the postal delivery during this period. The lower courts granted preliminary injunction for the plaintifs and ordered to count the votes submitted within six days after the scheduled day of elections. However, the Supreme court stayed this injunctive relief and held, that lower courts should not interfere into the electoral framework shortly before the elections, therefore, the lower court ruling was erroneous and late receipt of votes should result the postmarked classification even during the public health emergency. | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1016_o759.pdf |
https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/republican-national-committee-v-democratic-national-committee/; https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3901&context=mlr |
||
