Attempt to Ban Bris Milah In San Francisco

chazal write that Bris milah is a shmirah against immorality, just wondering why San Fransisco?!

I think getzel was suggesting that there’s a spiritual connection.

I’m sure it would be very contested. It will probably make it to the Federal Supeme Court. Although it might seem obvious that it is infringing on a group’s religious practice, rendering it unconstitutional, in the end, it’s in the hand of a judge — and as we know, they decide what they want to decide rather than what their deep pondering of the meaning of the law tells them.

There is no way 5 justices would allow this law to stand. 3 of them are jewish (I know Ruth Bader Ginsburg has met Bais Yaakov School groups)

I highly doubt that any Justice of the Supreme Court is going to rule that way solely because they are Jewish.

That being said, I’m kind of curious how this works since medicine is (I’m fairly certain) regulated by the state and not the city.

The Wolf

When the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, it means it agrees with a lower court decision .

That isn’t correct.

If this is passed, it will presumably be challenged on two counts. First, that it infringes on the free exercise of religion, and second that it violates substantive due process under the 14th amendment.

Both of these would be measured by weighing the individual need against the governmental interest. There is a pretty good argument here that there is a strong governmental interest, particularly where it is being done for religious reasons. This is not at all a slam dunk for us.

As for the Supreme Court justices being Jewish, I highly doubt it will help us. They are from the liberal wing, which is quite hostile to any religion. Most of the petition was probably jews also.

Sorry, but the Supreme Court will likely never hear this case. The law, if it passes, most likely DOES NOT violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which only prohibits the government from passing laws that specifically target religious practice. Here, the City of San Francisco has any number of neutral and secular objectives with which it can justify a circumcision ban. As Poppa pointed out, there may be a Due Process claim here, since parents could argue that the law infringes on their privacy. The problem is, Due Process does not protect people from acting in a way that the State sees as harming others in a direct tangible way. I assume the City will be able to provide sufficient evidence that the ban is needed to protect the physical integrity of the child.

Really, the issue is not particularly novel or substantial in constitutional terms, and it will likely go no further than the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The State constitutional claim is another matter entirely. I know next to nothing about California constitutional law, so I can’t comment meaningfully. based purely on the language, however, it seems that the California Free Exercise provision likely provides no more protection than the First Amendment.

Wow, that is so hypocritical it’s not normal.

Yes, everyone should have the right to freedom in literally all aspects of life, to the extent that everyone should be allowed to marry gay. But the right to be Jewish, that’s different.

The world today…..

Like many secular people, they are not looking to protect Freedom of Religion, they are looking to establish Freedom from Religion and along with it it the attempt to eradicate all vestiges of religious practice.

It’s interesting how Freedom of Religion was invented to protect religious people and practice, and is now used precisely for the opposite goal.