No, she said that a political party was not entitled to the same protections as a religious group.
The state GOP failed hard because they made that their argument which is horseshit. The district court denied them, the 7th Circuit (Barrett) denied them. Then they appealed to SCOTUS and Kavanaugh denied them.
According to the article, they also complained about certain political groupings being exempted while other political groupings were not. And the response according to the article was that their evidence was not "strong enough":
The appeals court also rejected, at least at this stage of the case, arguments from the state GOP that Pritzker was selectively enforcing the political gatherings ban by allowing and even endorsing massive Black Lives Matter street protests, while refusing to allow other political groups to assemble. Wood said the evidence that Pritzker directed some kind of waiver for BLM protests was not strong enough to support a preliminary injunction.
No, she said that a political party was not entitled to the same protections as a religious group.
The state GOP failed hard because they made that their argument which is horseshit. The district court denied them, the 7th Circuit (Barrett) denied them. Then they appealed to SCOTUS and Kavanaugh denied them.
According to the article, they also complained about certain political groupings being exempted while other political groupings were not. And the response according to the article was that their evidence was not "strong enough":
From https://archive.li/9oyoe#selection-1327.0-1327.443 :