Actually ACB and the others in the Illinois decision said pretty much the same thing the District of Columbia judges said.
Freedom of religion has special status and gov't has less ability to restrict them than it does other assemblies.
The Illinois case wasn't about regligious gatherings though. The District of Columbia case was.
So this is an apples to oranges case. The District of Columbia judge may or may not have issued a preliminary injunction if the case had been about politics rather than religion.
Wrong, as always.
The same court of appeals Barrett works at, different judges/case, same issue, said that churches could be closed and BLM protests allowed.
Barrett's case, said that Republican meetings could be closed, churches could be closed, and BLM protests allowed.
IOW, .gov could treat people exercising their 1A rights differently, just because .gov wanted to.
The DC Judge, the one with a brain, said that if a liberal .gov hack was gonna let BLM pull their shat, they got no reason to shut down legitimate exercise of the 1A by normal people.
ACB was wrong. The DC Judge was right.
