Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron's lawsuit against Governor Andy Beshear's COVID-19 orders on religious learning has been rejected for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
It was announce The Supreme Court will not review a lawsuit that Cameron's office had joined, alongside Danville Christian Academy, calling the order unconstitutional. The court's decision means that the governor's order will remain in place.
Cameron's office argued that the order violates religious freedoms. But, In the decision from the Supreme Court, the justices primarily took into consideration the timeliness of the lawsuit, with the order on schools set to expire essentially before Christmas break.
The justices also took note that Beshear has no intent to renew the order, which the governor has said during his most recent COVID-19 briefings.
Due to those factors, the justice decided to deny the lawsuit "without prejudice to the applicants or other parties seeking new preliminary injunction if the governor issues a school-closing order that applies in the new year."
Before the Supreme Court's ruling, Beshear's order had been allowed to remain in place due to a federal appeals court overturning the lower court's ruling that found the governor's mandate excludes religious institutions.
It's that lower court ruling the prompted further legal challenge from A.G. Daniel Cameron.
Beshear said Thursday after the Supreme Court's ruling that his order wasn't about treating religious schools differently from public schools, but that his administration asked everyone to do the same thing to help stop the spread of the coronavirus.
The governor also highlighted the fact that religious schools were not closed, but that they were allowed to continue instruction, but at home. He said any suggestion that schools were closing under the order would suggest that teachers are not doing their job.
The back and forth between Beshear and Cameron comes just weeks after the state Supreme Court found the governor's recent coronavirus executive orders were lawful under the state's constitution. The ruling did not go into whether his executive powers also apply to private institutions.