Litigating Religious Freedom in the Time of COVID-19: A Comparative Analysis
1. Courts have received a huge number of applications concerning COVID-19 provisions and processed multiple legal challenges concerning ad interim relief against emergency measures, often resorting to urgent procedures. Such exceptional procedures have led to summary judgements where legal matters c...
| Subtitles: | Special Issue on Governments’ Legal Responses and Judicial Reactions during a Global Pandemic: Litigating Religious Freedom in the Time of COVID-19 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2022
|
| In: |
A journal of church and state
Year: 2022, Volume: 64, Issue: 4, Pages: 721-731 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Religious freedom
/ Pandemic
/ COVID-19 (Disease)
|
| IxTheo Classification: | SA Church law; state-church law |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | 1. Courts have received a huge number of applications concerning COVID-19 provisions and processed multiple legal challenges concerning ad interim relief against emergency measures, often resorting to urgent procedures. Such exceptional procedures have led to summary judgements where legal matters concerned were scrutinized in a limited way. However, courts have given a significant contribution to a crucial challenge: clarifying “whether and to what degree fundamental rights can be subject to restrictions due to an unprecedented health crisis.” Although a comparative analysis shows that in various legal contexts courts have scrutinized cases following multiple standards of review, a common set of practices can be found. A crucial question concerns the role of the judiciary during an emergency, namely what degree of deference is due toward executive boards? Emphasizing the “near uniformity” of judicial approaches, Mark Hill’s comparative analysis of the judgements of several jurisdictions (including African courts), showed that at the outbreak of the pandemic, courts granted a broad latitude to the executive, and deferentially accepted their decisions. Justices acknowledged that the executive powers were better placed to take the most appropriate decisions in the light of their experience and knowledge. However, as time went by and scientific evidence increased, deference declined ... |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2040-4867 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: A journal of church and state
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1093/jcs/csac071 |
