The Supreme Court just handed down another 5-4 ruling, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the minority, that senselessly elevates religious worship over public safety. In this case, they barred California from limiting in-home gatherings to members of three households on the grounds that it violates people’s constitutional right to hold private religious services.

The reasoning is confounding. California’s restriction says nothing specific about religion. It’s purpose is to prevent COVID-19 super-spreader events from occurring through large private gatherings. The plaintiffs argue, however, that there are commercial activities that are permitted that are at least as hazardous as any home gathering and that, therefore, the policy discriminates against religion. If so, it also discriminates against knitters, cookouts for the soccer team, chess clubs, and competitive Pictionary night.

Lower courts, including a three-person Republican-nominated panel of the 9th-Circuit of Appeals, did not have trouble understanding the facts of this case, and they upheld the restrictions. But the five super-conservative members of the Supreme Court, including three Trump-appointed Justices, decided that it is wrong to restrict household gatherings when commercial gatherings are permitted.

The Supreme Court late Friday night lifted California’s restrictions on religious gatherings in private homes, saying they could not be enforced to bar prayer meetings, Bible study classes and the like. The court’s brief, unsigned order followed earlier ones striking down limits on attendance at houses of worship meant to combat the coronavirus…

…The majority said California had violated the Constitution by disfavoring prayer meetings. “California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts and indoor restaurants,” the opinion said.

If you’re confused about why these two categories are treated differently, here’s a tip:

A divided three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, refused to block that ruling while an appeal moved forward. It did not matter, the majority reasoned, that some commercial activities were arguably treated more favorably than private gatherings in homes.

“The state reasonably concluded that when people gather in social settings, their interactions are likely to be longer than they would be in a commercial setting; that participants in a social gathering are more likely to be involved in prolonged conversations; that private houses are typically smaller and less ventilated than commercial establishments; and that social distancing and mask-wearing are less likely in private settings and enforcement is more difficult,” Judges Milan D. Smith Jr. and Bridget S. Bade wrote, summarizing the trial court’s findings.

There’s a rationale to the distinction based on public health, but there’s also a balance that must be forged between allowing the economy to function and doing everything possible to prevent the spread of the virus. It’s a bit of square peg to put private religious services in the commercial category, although pastors need to make a living too. Folks who have Tupperware parties or sell beauty products from home could make a commercial argument against the restrictions, but that’s not the argument here. The argument is almost the opposite, as if the only private activity that’s banned is religious in nature.

The Supreme Court no longer acts as if it has a functioning brain. And, of course, it has now limited the tools our elected  officials and health experts have to keep us safe. Assuming these restrictions were effective to some degree, the Supreme Court is basically killing people unnecessarily and making it harder to prevent the emergence of viral variants that might defeat the vaccines.

It’s a good thing President Biden has kept his campaign promise and announced the formation of a commission to study reforms to the Court.