I can't directly reply to npo9, but I imagine the argument in front of the court would amount to something along the lines of where shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected by the 1st Amendment, either. It's about balancing the freedom versus the overall public good.

Where that balance is, I don't know. That's why we have the courts, to begin with.

How is this not an infringement on the right to assemble?

For California: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...

For the Federal Goverment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Service_Act

The list (for the federal government) of diseases is managed via Executive Order [PDF] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2003-04-09/pdf/03-883...

The CDC also has a link to this: https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...

These measures have precedent, so good luck in getting these overturned.

Don't know about the Bay Area but where I live they've declared a judicial emergency and shut down most of the courts. It might violate the right to assembly but you're unlikely to get a judge to hear your argument until after the order has been lifted.

It absolutely is, but this is an emergency and there is a direct causal link.

Good luck getting a court of law to rule against this order.

The Supreme Court has suspended sessions that have oral arguments, starting today:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/...

“The Court’s postponement of argument sessions in light of public health concerns is not unprecedented. The Court postponed scheduled arguments for October 1918 in response to the Spanish flu epidemic. The Court also shortened its argument calendars in August 1793 and August 1798 in response to yellow fever outbreaks.”