But more importantly Robert, you analysis is distorted and purposely misleading because you know better. The decision in Penn. is an outcome on the merits of a declaratory judgment action. It is not a motion for Prelim. Inj. as is the case in Chicago. https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1308492540849520640

You understand the meaningful difference in the two, but you don't make that clear to the readers. In Pennyslvania the matter has been ongoing since May. The parties conducted discovery and briefed a series of orders. There was a trial by both affidavit and testimony.

With a COMPLETE FACTUAL record the District Judge was able to evaluate all the steps taken by the Penn. Gov., and his justification for doing so each step along the way. In doing so he was able to identify shortcomings and constitutional deficiencies in the procedures employed.

The fight to challenge Jacobsen starts with full trials and district judge decisions that take the law in a new direction. Judge Stickman has done that WITH THE BENEFIT OF A FAVORABLE RECORD that can be defended on appeal.

The Illinois case, on the other hand, came to the Appeals Court based on a limited record made in the District Court where the only issue on appeal was whether the Gov.'s Order was invalid because it accommodated religious practices but not political practices.

As I noted earlier, the decision in the district court was only to deny preliminary injunctive relief -- it was not a decision on the merits of the claims made by the Plaintiffs. And based on the Appellate Order, the Plaintiffs didn't challenge the process as was done in Penn.

The Plaintiffs in Illinois challenged the facial constitutionality of the Order based on its accommodation of religion but not politics on First Amendment grounds.
That is not a Jacobsen challenge to the exercise of police powers by the Gov.

But at the PI stage the Plaintiffs probably lacked the necessary factual record to challenge the process by which the Gov. exercised police power as was done in Pennyslvania. So the comparison of the outcomes is "apples and oranges."

You know that, but you hide it.
So what is your real agenda?