Welcome to the advisory opinions podcast. This is David French with Sarah Isker. And I'm in love with this podcast that we are and I can say that even at the beginning because we've already recorded half of it.

So I'm going to encourage everyone hang in past the first 20 minutes of this podcast because we've got a great fascinating interesting mind bending conversation with Virginia Solicitor General Michelle K.

K. Lin about the equal rights amendment and originalism that you're not going to want to miss and I don't feel like I really did it justice by saying it's about equal rights amendment originalism.

But it is and it's awesome and you might come out of singing a different tune.

Yeah, it's very interesting. It's very thought provoking approach it with an open mind, no matter where you stand on the equal rights amendment itself.

But before we get there Sarah.

We've got some Supreme Court.

Let's say a descent from the denial of surgery, that or a descent from a denial of an application for a junk to relieve to be technically accurate.

That is provocative. It will get the people going in multiple different kinds of ways.

And what's that issue here is that New York has issued a regulation requiring health care workers to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. If you have a medical reason for an exemption, you get an exemption.

If you have a religious exemption or religious justification for your exemption, you do not get it.

You went up to the Supreme Court on the emergency docket, just as sodomy or refer to the court, the court denied the application for injunctive relief with three dissents with three dissents Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito.

Boom.

Boom. And so before we get into that and get into their descent from denial, Sarah, do you want to take another one of your three, three, three victory laps?

Why don't you give your first thoughts on the denial of the application itself, then we can deny them to the descent?

Well, first, this is actually really just chapter two. I mean, you could argue it's like chapter 10.

It's chapter 10 in the book of pandemic law.

But it's chapter two in this very specific book on religious exemptions for vaccine mandates. Remember back in October, similar application for injunctive relief to the court on the emergency docket from Maine's vaccine mandate that did not have a religious exemption.

And in fact, it was the exact same split. You had Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito on that one on dissenting from the denial of the application for injunctive relief.

And Alito wrote that one, but remember, and this is the important part because we don't have this in the New York one. We also had a concurrence in the denial of the application for injunctive relief from Barrett and Kavanaugh.

And we talked about this then, but to refresh everyone's memory, because I needed the refresher as well. This is where Barrett and Kavanaugh say, we're sick of this emergency docket stuff.

And please stop. And since you won't stop, we have just found a way to stop it because in the, in the factors that they consider on granting injunctive relief, the one that is sort of the most wishy washi, if you will, is the likelihood of success on the merits.

...