A New Justice, A Different Court
John Christie • December 15, 2020
In a flurry of six separate opinions released close to midnight on Thanksgiving eve, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-4, enjoined one of New York’s public health measures aimed at containing the spread of covid-19. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York.
Although the name of the newest Justice did not appear in any of the opinions, the vote of Amy Coney Barrett enabled the Court’s sudden shift in direction at a time when the impact of the coronavirus has reached new highs.
In two cases earlier this year, the Court, also by narrow 5-4 votes, was willing to defer to the efforts of governors to deal with an acute illness with no known cure, no effective treatment, and no vaccine that has killed thousands of people. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newsom, Governor of California; Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Steve Sisolak, Governor of Nevada. The governors of California and Nevada had sought to limit attendance at religious services as one of a number of restrictions designed to lower the risk of covid-19 spread. In California, attendance at religious services was restricted to 25 percent of the building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees — whichever was lower. In Nevada, the governor restricted services to a maximum of 50 people.
Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh all dissented, asserting that even a public health emergency “does not absolve us from our duty to defend the Constitution.” In their opinion, each of the governors’ orders treated houses of worship less fairly than they treated comparable secular gatherings and no “compelling justification” had been demonstrated for this difference in treatment. In the words of Justice Alito writing the principal dissent: “a public health emergency does not give governors and other public officials carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists.”
The current New York coronavirus regulations at stake in the new case differ from those enacted earlier by the governors of California and Nevada. They permit the New York governor to identify hot spots where covid-19 infection rates have spiked and to designate those hot spots as red zones, the immediately surrounding areas as orange zones, and the outlying areas as yellow zones, with the strictest restrictions in the red zones. Among other things, houses of worship in the red zones are limited to a gathering at any one time to the lesser of 10 people or 25 percent of capacity, with less strict limits in the other two zones. In October, the governor designated red, orange, and yellow zones in parts of Brooklyn and Queens.
Two different religious organizations filed suit in federal district court claiming that these local fixed-capacity restrictions violated their First Amendment rights. After receiving evidence and hearing witnesses, the district court concluded that the regulations were “crafted on science and for epidemiological purposes” and had, in fact, treated “religious gatherings … more favorably than similar gatherings.” As a result, the court declined to enter an injunction against the implementation of the state’s regulations. On appeal the Second Circuit also declined to prevent the operation of the state’s regulations pending the outcome of the litigation but placed the case on an expedited briefing and argument schedule.
The religious organizations then petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene and, by another 5-4 vote, the Court this time determined to issue an injunction prohibiting New York from enforcing its fixed-capacity zone restrictions while awaiting the Second Circuit’s decision, saying that “even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.” These restrictions, “by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty” while at the same time allowing people to go to places such as liquor stores and bicycle shops. In addition to the votes of Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, the necessary fifth vote for this departure from the result reached in the two earlier cases was provided by the Court’s newest justice.
The four dissenting justices offered three different dissenting opinions. As seen by Justice Breyer, whether these restrictions violate the Constitution’s free exercise clause is “far from clear” and contrary to the lower court’s determination. “The nature of the epidemic, the spikes, the uncertainties, and the need for quick action, taken together” must be balanced against the First Amendment issues. For Justice Sotomayor, the majority ignores the conditions medical experts have found to facilitate the spread of covid-19, noting as well that the New York regulations were designed to apply only in specially designated areas experiencing a surge in covid-19 cases. In her opinion, the result reached by the majority plays “a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials.” And the Chief Justice defended his other dissenting colleagues as not having “cut the Constitution loose during a pandemic” but rather as viewing “the matter differently after careful study and analysis reflecting their best efforts to fulfill their responsibility under the Constitution.”
The Court’s new majority eagerly champions the right to attend religious services as if the Constitution allows no other choice. It gives no deference to decision-making by public officials while at the same time making their own judgments about whether other, secular activities treated differently by covid-19 related restrictions presented health risks greater or lesser than religious services. In doing so, the decision flies in the face of conclusions made by the medical community about the relative risks of spread in different settings and does so at a time when state officials continue to scramble to cope with a new surge brought upon by a rising number of infections and overloaded hospitals.
John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
Common Sense for the Eastern Shore
The 447th legislative session of the Maryland General Assembly adjourned on April 8. This End of Session Report highlights the work Shore Progress has done to fight for working families and bring real results home to the Shore. Over the 90-day session, lawmakers debated 1,901 bills and passed 878 into law. Shore Progress and members supported legislation that delivers for the Eastern Shore, protecting our environment, expanding access to housing and healthcare, strengthening workers’ rights, and more. Shore Progress Supported Legislation By The Numbers: Over 60 pieces of our backed legislation were passed. Another 15 passed in one Chamber but not the other. Legislation details are below, past the budget section. The 2026 Maryland State Budget How We Got Here: Maryland’s budget problems didn’t start overnight. They began under Governor Larry Hogan. Governor Hogan expanded the state budget yearly but blocked the legislature from moving money around or making common-sense changes. Instead of fixing the structural issues, Hogan used federal covid relief funds to hide the cracks and drained our state’s savings from $5.5 billion to $2.3 billion to boost his image before leaving office. How Trump/Musk Made It Worse: Maryland is facing a new fiscal crisis driven by the Trump–Musk administration, whose trade wars, tariff policies, and deep federal cuts have hit us harder than most, costing the state over 30,000 jobs, shuttering offices, and erasing promised investments. A University of Maryland study estimates Trump’s tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion, and those federal cuts have already added $300 million to our budget deficit. Covid aid gave us a short-term boost and even created a fake surplus under Hogan, but that money is gone, while housing, healthcare, and college prices keep rising. The Trump–Musk White House is only making things worse by slashing funding, gutting services, and eliminating research that Marylanders rely on. How The State Budget Fixes These Issues: This year, Maryland faced a $3 billion budget gap, and the General Assembly fixed it with a smart mix of cuts and fair new revenue, while protecting working families, schools, and health care. The 2025 Budget cuts $1.9 billion ($400 million less than last year) without gutting services people rely on. The General Assembly raised $1.2 billion in fair new revenue, mostly from the wealthiest Marylanders. The Budget ended with a $350 million surplus, plus $2.4 billion saved in the Rainy Day Fund (more than 9% of general fund revenue), which came in $7 million above what the Spending Affordability Committee called for. The budget protects funding for our schools, health care, transit, and public workers. The budget delivers real wins: $800 million more annually for transit and infrastructure, plus $500 million for long-term transportation needs. It invests $9.7 billion in public schools and boosts local education aid by $572.5 million, a 7% increase. If current revenue trends hold, no new taxes will be needed next session. Even better, 94% of Marylanders will see a tax cut or no change, while only the wealthiest 5% will finally pay their fair share. The tax system is smarter now. We’re: Taxing IT and data services like Texas and D.C. do; Raising taxes on cannabis and sports betting, not groceries or medicine; and Letting counties adjust income taxes. The budget also restores critical funding: $122 million for teacher planning $15 million for cancer research $11 million for crime victims $7 million for local business zones, and Continued support for public TV, the arts, and BCCC The budget invests in People with disabilities, with $181 million in services Growing private-sector jobs with $139 million in funding, including $27.5 million for quantum tech, $16 million for the Sunny Day Fund, and $10 million for infrastructure loans. Health care is protected for 1.5 million Marylanders, with $15.6 billion for Medicaid and higher provider pay. Public safety is getting a boost too, with $60 million for victim services, $5.5 million for juvenile services, and $5 million for parole and probation staffing. This budget also tackles climate change with $100 million for clean energy and solar projects, and $200 million in potential ratepayer relief. Public workers get a well-deserved raise, with $200 million in salary increases, including a 1% COLA and ~2.5% raises for union workers. The ultra-wealthy will finally chip in to pay for it: People earning over $750,000 will pay more, Millionaires will pay 6.5%, and Capital gains over $350,000 get a 2% surcharge. Deductions are capped for high earners, but working families can still deduct student loans, medical debt, and donations. This budget is bold, fair, and built to last. That’s why Shore Progress proudly supports it. Click on the arrows below for details in each section.
Let your elected representatives and business and cultural leaders know that our Refuge and others like it all over the country deserve to be protected. They deserve our stewardship for the natural wonders they shelter, and because they provide refuge for people, too.
The Budget Deficit In a recent debate on closing Maryland’s budget deficit, Minority Leader Jason Buckel, a Republican delegate from Allegany County, made an important point: “The man upstairs has only been there for two, three years. I don’t blame him for our economic failures of the last 10,” referring to Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, who was elected in 2022. Ahead of the 2026 gubernatorial elections, Buckel’s comments highlight a key reality that many of his Republican colleagues seldom admit: It isn’t right to blame Gov. Moore for a budget deficit that has been brewing for years. Now projected at $3.3 billion, Maryland’s structural deficit is a problem that started long before Moore took office. In fact, it was first projected in 2017, during the tenure of former GOP Gov. Larry Hogan. This isn’t an opinion — it’s a fact that Buckel and other lawmakers, including Republican Del. Jefferson Ghrist, have bravely acknowledged. During that same debate, Ghrist remarked that the Department of Legislative Services had warned about this deficit throughout Hogan’s administration, yet he did little to address it. Ghrist pointed out that during Maryland’s “good years,” when the state received a flood of federal covid-19 relief dollars, spending spiraled without regard for long-term fiscal health. Hogan used these one-time federal funds to support ongoing programs, which masked the true state of Maryland’s finances and created an illusion of fiscal stability. Hogan continues to take credit for the “surplus” Maryland had in 2022 — even though experts repeatedly note it was caused by the influx of federal dollars during the pandemic. As Ghrist correctly observed, the lack of fiscal restraint and slow growth during the Hogan years laid the groundwork for the $3.3 billion structural deficit the state faces today. Indeed, Maryland’s economy has been stagnant since 2017, especially in comparison to its neighboring states, well before Moore took office. Compounding these challenges are President Donald Trump’s reckless layoffs and trade wars with our allies. Thousands of federal workers who live in Maryland are losing their jobs, which will cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. Trump’s tariffs will also put an enormous strain on local businesses, including Eastern Shore farmers, who are now subject to up to 15% retaliatory tariffs on chicken, wheat, soybeans, corn, fruits, and vegetables. FY2026 Budget Considering this grim reality, Maryland’s lawmakers are making difficult, but necessary, decisions to shore up the state’s finances. Gov. Moore and state legislative leaders recently agreed to a budget that prioritizes expanding Maryland’s economy without raising taxes on most residents. In fact, 94% of Marylanders should see either a tax cut or no change at all to their income tax bill under the proposed agreement. Lawmakers also plan to cut government spending by the largest amount in 16 years, while at the same time making targeted investments in emerging industries, such as quantum computing and aerospace defense, so the state is less dependent on federal jobs. While the richest Marylanders might see their income taxes go up, it’s reasonable to ask someone making over $750,000 a year to pay $1,800 more to support law enforcement, strengthen our schools, and grow our economy. As for the proposed tax on data and IT services, these products aren’t subject to Maryland’s sales tax under current law. Maryland leaders want to modernize our tax code by levying a 3% sales tax on these products. Because they don’t raise income taxes on the majority of Marylanders and because state leaders are also cutting spending by billions, these ideas are fair. They’re also necessary after Gov. Hogan chose to kick the can down the road instead of addressing Maryland’s long-predicted deficit and now that Trump’s policies will lay off thousands of Marylanders and his tariffs will hurt our state. By making responsible choices now, Maryland leaders are putting the state on a path to long-term economic stability. Their decisions will help Maryland thrive, create jobs, and invest in the vital services that every resident relies on — without burdening hardworking families. I’m confident Maryland will emerge stronger, more resilient, and ready to lead in the industries of tomorrow. Elaine McNeil is chair of the Queen Anne’s Democratic Central Committee.
Among Donald Trump’s most recent targets is what he calls “rogue law firms.” At 6pm last Thursday, March 27, he issued an Executive Order (EO) aimed at my old law firm, WilmerHale, as one of those “rogue” firms. Approximately 15 hours later, the firm filed a 63-page complaint challenging the EO on multiple constitutional grounds. The EO is an “unprecedented assault on the bedrock principle that one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit” and constitutes an “undisguised form of retaliation for representing clients and causes Trump disfavors.” And by 8pm on Friday, March 28, a little over 24 hours after the EO was first issued, a federal district court judge in Washington granted a request for a temporary restraining order, blocking key provisions of the EO from taking effect for now. In doing so, the Court found that “the retaliatory nature of the EO is clear from its face. There is no doubt that it chills speech and legal advocacy and qualifies as a constitutional harm.” The Executive Order The EO and a so-called “Fact Sheet” that went with it recites that the Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called “Big Law” firms that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) is yet another law firm said to have abandoned the legal profession’s highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice by engaging in activities that “undermine justice and the interests of the United States.” The specific examples offered in support of this conclusion: The EO asserts that WilmerHale “engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends,” an apparent reference to the firm’s representation of Trump’s political opponents — namely the Democratic National Committee and the presidential campaigns of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The EO cites WilmerHale’s “egregious conduct” in “supporting efforts to discriminate on the basis of race,” an apparent reference to the firm’s representation of Harvard in the Students for Fair Admissions litigation. The EO accuses WilmerHale of “backing the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes,” an apparent reference to the firm’s litigation related pro bono practice and successful challenges to immigration related policies. The EO accuses WilmerHale of “furthering the degradation of the quality of American elections,” an apparent reference to the film’s involvement in challenges to restrictive state voter-identification and voter-registration laws. The EO singles out certain current and former WilmerHale partners, including Robert Mueller, for special criticism by describing Mr. Mueller’s investigation as “one of the most partisan investigations in American history” and having “weaponized the prosecutorial power to suspend the democratic process and distort justice.” The EO then Revokes security clearances held by WilmerHale attorneys; Prohibits the federal government from hiring WilmerHale employees absent a special waiver; Orders a review and the possible termination of federal contracts with entities that do business with the firm; Calls for the withdrawal of government goods or services from the firm; and Calls for restrictions on the ability of WilmerHale employees to enter federal buildings (presumably including federal courthouses) and on their “engaging” with government employees. WilmerHale’s Complaint WilmerHale engaged Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General during the George W. Bush administration and a well-known advocate frequently representing conservative causes, to represent the firm in this matter. Assisted by some 15 WilmerHale litigators, the complaint names the Executive Office of the President and 48 other Departments, Commissions, and individual Officers in their official capacity as defendants. A variety of constitutional violations are alleged: The First Amendment protects the rights of WilmerHale and its clients to speak freely, and petition the courts and other government institutions without facing retaliation and discrimination by federal officials. The separation of powers limits the President’s role to enforcing the law and no statute or constitutional provision empowers him to unilaterally sanction WilmerHale in this manner. The EO flagrantly violates due process by imposing severe consequences without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The EO violates the right to counsel protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and imposes unconstitutional conditions on federal contracts and expenditures. The complaint alleges that WilmerHale has already suffered irreparable damage in the 16 hours since the EO issued. The firm has been vilified by the most powerful person in the country as a “rogue law firm” that has “engaged in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. The EO will inevitable cause extensive, lasting damage to WilmerHale’s current and future business prospects. The harm to the firm’s reputation will negatively affect its ability to recruit and retain employees. Further Proceedings Temporary restraining orders constitute emergency relief upon a showing of likely success on the merits and irreparable harm were the temporary relief not entered. A later hearing will be held in order for the judge to determine whether a preliminary injunction should be issued preventing the government from executing the EO during the continued length of the litigation. Editorial Note: In light of the recent capitulation of several “Big Law” firms to the unreasonable and unconstitutional attacks by the Trump administration, WilmerHale is providing a blueprint for resistance as it fights back. More law firms need to be inspired by WilmerHale’s response to Trump’s demand for revenge on his so-called political enemies. John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
Tom Timberman was one of the founders of Common Sense for the Eastern Shore. Sadly, he died last month. He will be missed. Common Sense exists because of his leadership and inspiration. His vision was to provide factual and timely commentary and analysis on topics that concern people who live and work on Maryland's Eastern Shore, and to provide factual reporting to help readers shape their own lives. It was important to Tom, as it is today to the editorial board, for Common Sense to help voters to be aware of the effects — personal and local — of decisions made at the federal and state levels. Especially relevant now is this from our Mission Statement: “We seek an America responsive to its citizens and its constitution.” We reprint this tribute from Bill Flook, President of the Democratic Club of Kent County : Many of us were deeply saddened to learn of TomTimberman’s passing last week. It’s hard to believe that such a strong Democratic voice is gone. I worked with Tom for much of the past decade on many good projects promoting our values and activities, including helping on his campaign for County Commissioner, and I’ll particularly miss following his lead as Captain of the Dawn Patrol. Our group met most Saturday mornings for coffee and some good chat, before heading up to Dems HQ to set up the booth there. We’ll miss you, Tom!
After over 12 hours of debate over two days (and a whole circus from the other side), the Maryland House of Delegates has passed HB 350, this year's state budget, and sent it to the State Senate. This budget is a deal between House Democrats, Senate Democrats, and Governor Wes Moore. It faces our state's $3 billion deficit head-on not with fantasy math, but with real choices: smart cuts and fair new revenue. This is what grown-up governing looks like. How We Got Here: Maryland’s budget problems didn’t start overnight. Leaders began warning about a shortfall in 2017 when Governor Larry Hogan was in office. Hogan made our state budget bigger every year, but the legislature wasn’t allowed to move money around or make common-sense changes. By law, they could only make cuts. In 2020, Maryland voters changed that. Starting in 2023, lawmakers finally got full power to shape the budget, not just cut from it. Instead of fixing the problem, Governor Hogan used federal COVID relief to hide our fiscal instability. Then, before leaving office, he drained our state’s savings from $5.5 billion to $2.3 billion to boost his image. Today, we are facing a new fiscal arsonist. Donald Trump’s trade wars and cuts to federal programs hit Maryland hard. We have more federal jobs and agencies than any other state, so we felt it worse than most. A University of Maryland study says Trump’s tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion. Trump/Musk's policies caused over 30,000 people in Maryland to lose their jobs, offices to shut down, and promised investments to disappear. These federal cuts added another $300 million to our budget deficit. COVID relief gave us a short break and even created a fake surplus under Hogan, but that money is gone now. Meanwhile, housing, healthcare, and college prices have gone way up. The Trump–Musk White House is making it worse by cutting even more funding, eliminating research, and gutting the services we rely on. That’s why Maryland had to act. We needed a real plan to protect working people, fund our schools and hospitals, and keep our state strong. Why Cuts Were Needed Trump’s trade wars and cuts to federal agencies hit Maryland harder than any other state. A University of Maryland study says those tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion. That hurts real people: A chicken farmer on the Eastern Shore is paying 25% more for fertilizer. A dock worker in Baltimore has fewer ships to unload. A restaurant owner in Western Maryland can’t afford eggs and tomatoes. We’ve lost over 30,000 jobs. Offices have shut down. Promised investments disappeared. The decisions of the Trump/Musk administration added $300 million to our state deficit.
