Just so you know, that decision is fake news. I’m a lawyer and I’ve read it. It does not hold IL lockdowns are OK. The Pennsylvania case that held them unconstitutional was based on a different argument—a line of argument not made at all in the IL case.

The narrow question in the IL case was whether the fact that religious activity was carved out for PREFERENTIAL treatment under the lockdown orders renders the rest of the orders unconstitutional. The complain was about UNEQUAL treatment of religion and other speech.

As the court pointed out, even if it held the inequality mattered, that might just as easily be remedied by imposing STRICTER limits on religion, as it would by changing to looser rules for everything else. The judges didn’t like that idea.

But more importantly the court simply held that religion DOES enjoy special status under the Constitution, and therefore there is nothing wrong about treating it better than general “speech.”

Direct quote: “ A careful look at the Supreme Court’s Religion Clause cases, coupled with the fact that EO43 is designed to give greater leeway to the exercise of religion, convinces us that the speech that accompanies religious exercise has a privileged position under the First Amendment, and that EO43 permissibly accommodates religious activities.”