#SCOTUS, April 19, 2017. We've got a moderate-sized line outside for the big Trinity Lutheran arguments.pic.twitter.com/kd1eHhkc1Q
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I'm up to the courtroom. TTFN.
First take out of Trinity Lutheran: With Kagan calling the state's program a "burden on a constitutional right," the church is looking good.
After Kagan went there, Sotomayor — critical of the church's argument — immediately raised a question about whether there's still adversity.
Then, shortly thereafter, with arguments almost done, Gorsuch weighed in for the first time, asking a follow-up Q on Kagan's line of Qs.
After Sotomayor raised the adversity question, the Chief quickly followed up by asking whether voluntary cessation doctrine applied here.
Earlier, Ginsburg questioned mootness but suggested a DIG possibility by saying state policy change might've changed cert grant decision.
Breyer was focused on line-drawing at the extreme end of the state's argument, whether fire/police protection to churches could be limited.
Kennedy was not too talkative, but he asked the church about whether, absent Estab Clause issue, states can draw no relig distinctions.
(Church lawyer pointed to Locke v. Davey.)
Later, to the state, Kennedy picked up on that, calling this distinction in Missouri "status-based," thus distinct from Locke.
Alito, giving specific examples of fed/state safety/security enhancement programs, asked whether MO would allow church participation.
State lawyer said that the answer, traditionally, would be no.
Alright. I'm at the office and writing up, so more to come in a bit.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.