Acts20.com

For those who want to have them, at least:www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article241861126.html

I'm not sure it is unconstitutional, since it is happening at the state level. I'm sure cases will eventually emerge from this and it will be really interesting to see how they are argued/decided. The First Amendment very specifically restricts Congress, and while courts have always applied this restriction very liberally to lower levels in the past, they have also consistently affirmed state and local governments' rights to do things such as quarantines. I have no idea which way it will go.

Against unconstitutional restrictions being placed on churches by local and state governments www.foxnews.com/us/doj-expect-action-government-regulation-religious-covid-19

Not only is it not unconstitutional, it is constitutional. “The federal government derives its authority for isolation and quarantine from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264), the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states.

The DOJ move would come as some churches are standing up to city governments that have blocked them from holding in-person services during the outbreak -- even in drive-in formats that keep people separated and in their own cars.A judge in Louisville, Ky., on Saturday issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of Mayor Greg Fischer’s ban on drive-in church services there.

Judicial pushback against the drive-in bans is good. I saw many people including political and law lefties praising Walker's decision on the merits (though I've read that Walker's rhetoric was sharply and unnecessarily partisan).Eddie's right that US law and jurisprudence has traditionally given states and localities broad leeway when it comes to public health and courts won't change that now, but the drive-in ban is a good place for them to exert some necessary balance.

Under strict scrutiny, the city has the burden to demonstrate that prohibiting the small church here from holding the drive-in services at issue here -- services where attendees are required to remain in their cars in the church parking lot at all times with their windows rolled up and spaced consistent with CDC guidelines -- is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest, the filing states. As of now, it seems unlikely that the city will be able to carry that burden.www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-mississippi-church

Actually, as I predicted, the DOJ is tackling an issue where they believe the law was applied unfairly. From the DOJ statement: