“I understand this factor to encompass not only an assessment of the underlying merits but also a discretionary judgment about whether the Court should grant review in the case,” Barrett continued.
“Were the standard otherwise, applicants could use the emergency docket to force the Court to give a merits preview in cases that it would be unlikely to take — and to do so on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument,” she stated. “In my view, this discretionary consideration counsels against a grant of extraordinary relief in this case, which is the first to address the questions presented.”
Three conservative justices, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito, said they would have granted the request, with Gorsuch authoring the dissenting opinion.
“No one questions that these individuals have served patients on the front line of the COVID–19 pandemic with bravery and grace for 18 months now,” Gorsuch wrote. “Yet, with Maine’s new rule coming into effect, one of the applicants has already lost her job for refusing to betray her faith; another risks the imminent loss of his medical practice.”
Maine previously permitted exemptions for religious or philosophical beliefs, but voters rejected a referendum to reinstate exemptions in the November 2019 election.
Gorsuch wrote that Maine’s rule creates a “double standard” that tolerates medical “trepidation” about the vaccines but not religious objections.
Credit: Source link
