This news has been received from:

All trademarks, copyrights, videos, photos and logos are owned by respective news sources. News stories, videos and live streams are from trusted sources.

CHICAGO (CBS) — Illinois Republicans wanted relief from Gov. JB Pritzker’s coronavirus rule, which capped the number of people allowed at political rallies at 50.

The party took the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court and asked the Court to rule before 5 p.m. Saturday.

On Saturday, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied the request.

The Republicans argued the governor’s rule violated the U.S. Constitution, because it treated political rallies differently than church services or Black Lives Matter demonstrations:

“Though fighting COVID-19 is doubtless a compelling state interest, the Governor’s policy fails narrow tailoring because it treats similarly situated speakers differently. The First and Fourteenth Amendments both guarantee equal treatment of similar speakers. Government may no more favor one particular speaker or category of speech than it may target one for disfavor. Citizens United v. F.E.C., 558 U.S. 310, 340 (2010) (the First Amendment ‘[p]rohibit[s . . .] restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others.’). Yet that is what the Governor does with a policy that bans gatherings, but extends a de jure exemption to religious speakers and an ex cathedra exemption to Black Lives Matter speakers.”

News Source:

Tags: investigative coronavirus covid 19 gov jb pritzker illinois republican party justice brett kavanaugh political rallies tracking coronavirus in chicagoland u s supreme court investigative

Trump sets Sept. 15 date for TikTok shutdown in the US unless deal is made

Next News:

SF Judge Denies Property Owners’ Legal Challenge To Overturn Eviction Ban

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — A San Francisco judge on Monday denied a legal challenge brought on by property owners looking to block a new San Francisco law prohibiting landlords from evicting or imposing late fees on tenants who can’t pay because of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 Tenant Protections ordinance, initially introduced by Supervisor Dean Preston back in early June, has since been signed by Mayor London Breed.

However, last month a complaint filed by attorney Andrew Zacks, on behalf of a coalition of property owners including the San Francisco Apartment Association, the SF Association of Realtors, the Coalition for Better Housing and the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute, sought to challenge the ordinance. The complaint alleged, at least in part, the ordinance violates constitutional and state law by preventing property owners from using eviction procedures.

Arguments first began at a hearing Friday and on Monday Superior Court Judge Charles Haines’ issued an order denying the legal challenge, effectively ruling the ordinance doesn’t violate state law or the Constitution.

“This is a resounding victory for vulnerable tenants in San Francisco,” Preston said in a statement. “I have said from the start, we will not stand by and watch thousands of San Franciscans become homeless because of a pandemic they cannot control, and I’m proud that our legislation has been upheld and vindicated in court.”

With Newsom’s order expiring Sept. 30, Preston said without his ordinance, thousands of tenants who can’t pay rent because of the pandemic could be served with evictions, “unprecedented in scale and irreparable in its harm.”

Preston called the ordinance “one of the strongest eviction protection laws in the country.”

Zacks, Freedman and Patterson, the law firm representing the property owners, was not immediately available for comment.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Other News

  • Indiana Court Rejects Appeal by Man Convicted in 5 Killings
  • Totally False: Heidi Klum Denies Ever Being On Jeffrey Epsteins Private Jet
  • Neil Young sues Trump campaign for playing songs at rallies
  • 20 artists who have spoken out against President Trump playing their music at his events
  • US Appeals Court: New Policy on Immigrants Already Does Harm
  • US appeals court: New policy on immigrants already does harm
  • Google's smart assistant can now help families with kids at taking classes online from home
  • Coleen Rooney denies she’s pregnant as she blames ‘unflattering’ bikini pics
  • Britons and Americans are much less likely to follow lockdown guidelines than French or Italian people, study finds
  • Google Assistant will recommend YouTube Music songs on Nest speakers
  • Seven & I Rallies 8.9% as Investors Embrace $21 Billion Deal
  • Sushant Singh Rajput Death Probe: Heavy Rainfall Forces Bombay High Court to Postpone Hearing on Plea Seeking Transfer of Case to CBI
  • Kansas Senate Race Tests GOP Leaders' Power to Block Kobach
  • Kansas Senate race tests GOP leaders’ power to block Kobach
  • Kansas Senate race tests GOP leaders power to block Kobach
  • Democrats have a warning for the GOP if it tries to put another Trump appointee on the Supreme Court
  • Donald Trump: Manhattan Fraud Investigation Continuation of the Witch Hunt
  • Prosecutor Seeking Trumps Tax Returns Cites Probe of Business
  • Democrats threaten to expand — and pack — the Supreme Court if the GOP dares fill a high court vacancy this year