“Justice Stephen Breyer denied a request … from a Maine church that sought to block the state from enforcing or reinstating Covid restrictions in the wake of the Delta variant surge,” CNN reported on Monday, August 2, 2021 (read story here).
To be clear, the church was appealing restrictions that don’t exist. Their petition cited a “threat” of restrictions, not something the state has done. It jumped the gun.
This might be a good time to review the “case or controversy” doctrine of American law, which originates in the Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 1), and makes an actual dispute a requirement for jurisdiction (details here). In other words, courts can’t decide hypothetical questions or issue advisory opinions. The church also has to show a harm for which a legal remedy is available.
If the state orders restrictions, the church can seek an injunction against their enforcement. But a court has no jurisdiction to order the state not to impose restrictions when it hasn’t done so. Preemptive lawsuits also violate the “no harm, no foul” rule.
It’s surprising the church’s lawyers tried this. The pastor and deacons might not know this stuff, but lawyers are supposed to. It’s basic. They teach it in first-year law classes. It’s on bar exams. There was no chance it would succeed. The church shouldn’t even be charged legal fees for such crummy lawyering. Maybe their next lawsuit should be against their own lawyers.
The case is also about politics. Maine state officials may hesitate to take action without some actual statute passed by the legislature. Breyer here is shooting across the bow of those officials who would restrict without a statute or inflate a statute. The client interests may well have been well served. [Edited comment.]
Breyer is doing no such thing. You’re reading too much into it. This is a simple matter of the court lacking jurisdiction where there is no case or controversy.