The Oxford Journal of Church and State has published a very interesting looking series of articles on historical and contemporary challenges to Catholicism. The authors include Jo Renee Formicola (Seton Hall), Christopher Beneke (Bentley University), and others. Unfortunately the issue is behind a pay wall because the articles look well worth checking out.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order clarifying the scope of the TRO issued by the district court in the Bronx Household of Faith case. The order states:
We call to the district court’s attention an appearance of overbreadth of its order. The district court stated that it “issues a temporary restraining order enjoining defendants from enforcing” regulation D-180. As stated the order could be construed to enjoin the Board from enforcing its regulation not only against the plaintiffs, but also against non-parties as well. The Board has thus complained that, at the last minute, it is being required to process more than 23 new permit applications. This is a misunderstanding of the order. The order should be understood as enjoining the City from enforcing its regulation against the parties to the case—not as enjoining the City from enforcing its order against non-parties. The district court’s finding that Bronx Household has shown likelihood of success on the merits of its case does not justify enjoining the Board from enforcing its order against non-parties.
My understanding is that the plaintiff is challenging this regulation as being facially unconstitutional, so if it eventually prevails on the merits of that claim, that would prevent the City from enforcing the regulation against non-parties. But because at present this is only before the court on a motion for TRO, it applies only to Bronx Household of Faith, and the City is at liberty to throw everybody else out.