Hawaii Mask Mandate Did Not Violate Protester's Free Exercise Rights

 In Denis v. Ige, (D HI, May 12, 2021), a Hawaii federal district court rejected challenges to Hawaii's COVID-19 mask requirements. Plaintiff, who was arrested at a protest for failing to wear a mask, asked for $632 million in damages.  Among other challenges, he asserts that his free exercise rights were violated:

He appears to contend that because the Mask Mandates “infringe[] upon [his] right to breathe oxygen without restriction,” which is “in violation [of his] covenant with his Creator of many names,” the Mask Mandates inhibit his religious practices.

The court concluded that plaintiff failed to allege that the mask mandate imposed a substantial burden on his practice of religion, and the mandate survives rational basis review. The court also rejected other claims, including free speech and freedom of association claims.

Court Wil Not Enjoin South Carolina "No Aid" Clause

In Bishop of Charleston v. Adams, (D SC, May 11, 2021), a South Carolina federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction in a suit challenging the constitutionality of the "no aid" clause in South Carolina's Constitution. That clause bars the use of public funds to benefit any religious or other private educational institution. Plaintiffs, which include a diocese representing 33 Catholic schools, sought access to federal CARES Act funds that had been directed to South Carolina. The court distinguished this case from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue which struck down Montana's "no aid" clause.  The court said in part:

[T]he Supreme Court struck down Montana’s no-aid provision precisely because it discriminated against religious schools but not other private schools, creating an implicit contrast with no-aid provisions like South Carolina’s that encompass both religious and private non-religious schools. Unlike the provision at issue in Espinoza, South Carolina’s no-aid provision prohibits the use of public funds for the direct benefit of religious and non-religious private schools alike. In other words, South Carolina’s provision discriminates along the private/public divide, not the religious/non-religious divide.

Missouri AG Sues County Over COVID Restrictions

Missouri's Attorney General yesterday filed suit in state court against the St. Louis County Executive challenging the county's COVID-19 orders.  The complaint (full text) in State of Missouri ex. rel. Schmitt v. Page, (MO Cir. Ct., filed 5/11/2021), alleges, among other things, that the orders violate the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act by requiring pre-approval of large religious gatherings and imposing capacity limits and  masking requirements. The Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. AP reports on the lawsuit.

Church Sues Over Massachusetts COVID Regulations

Suit was filed yesterday in a Massachusetts federal district court by a church challenging the state's COVID-19 reopening regulations. The complaint (full text) in New Life South Coast Church v. Baker, (D MA, filed 5/10/2021), alleges in part:

Massachusetts’ phased COVID-19 reopening regulations, both as drafted by the Commonwealth and as implemented by the City, single out places of worship for differential and disfavored treatment. Under those regulations, restaurants, theaters, public transit, and other places of public gathering have limited or no restrictions on capacity, beyond the practical constraints of social distancing, while places of worship must follow more burdensome capacity restrictions. In addition, the regulations single out places of worship for special disfavor by barring “communal gatherings” before and after the religious service—a restriction that applies to no other institution or activity, and that purports to regulate how Massachusetts citizens may exercise religion.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Supreme Court GVR's Challenge To California Limits On Indoor Worship

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, (US Sup. Ct., Feb. 5, 2021), enjoined while a petition for certiorari is pending a portion of California's restrictions on indoor worship services. (See prior posting.) Today in the case (Docket No. 20-746, April 26, 2021) the Supreme Court granted certiorari, summarily vacated the 9th Circuit's judgment upholding the restrictions, and remanded for further consideration in light of Tandon v. Newsom. (Order List).

FDA Lifts In-Person Dispensing Requirement For Abortion Drug During COVID Emergency

On Monday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in a letter (full text) to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine announced that during the COVID-19 emergency, it is lifting the in-person dispensing requirement for the abortion drug  Mifepristone. The agency said that it was exercising enforcement discretion because of the additional COVID-related risks to patients and healthcare personnel involved in clinic visits solely to obtain the drug.  It likewise will allow prescriptions for Mifepristone to be filled by mail. Washington Free Beacon reports on criticism of the FDA's move by Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion groups.

Multi-Faith Group Issues Statement Questioning Religious Exemptions From COVID Orders

On Monday, some 27 religious organizations representing various Christian, Jewish and Muslim traditions issued a statement (full text) expressing concern that states are going too far in adopting legislation exempting houses of worship from COVID-19 health orders and other emergency orders.  The statement reads in part:

We appreciate the desire to protect our right to worship and gather for religious activities. Too often, however, these bills are overly broad and could result in policies that threaten public health and safety.

Religious freedom is a fundamental American value, and the freedom to worship in accordance with one’s spiritual practices and traditions is a right of the highest order. At the same time, religious freedom does not demand tying the hands of public officials who are trying to safeguard public health as they respond to unforeseen events like pandemics, natural disasters and other emergencies. Indeed, all of our denominations have found creative ways to provide opportunities for worship during the pandemic, recognizing the spiritual sustenance and sense of community that religious practices provide....

Times of public crisis demand that all community leaders—religious, secular, and governmental—work together to find solutions. By giving religious gatherings a pre-emptive exemption from future emergency orders, we fear that these bills will unintentionally paint religious communities as part of the problem, not the solution, and thereby undercut our ability to partner with community leaders to defeat the crisis.

[Thanks to Don Byrd at BJC for the lead.]

Supreme Court Enjoins, Pending Appeals, California Limits On In-Home Worship Services

Late Friday night, in another case on its so-called "shadow docket", the U.S. Supreme Court in Tandon v. Newsom,  (Sup. Ct., April 9, 2021), granted an injunction preventing enforcement during the appeal process of California's COVID-19 order limiting religious gatherings in homes to three households. In a 5-4 decision, the majority in a 4-page per curiam opinion outlined important principles to be applied in deciding free exercise claims, saying in part:

First, government regulations are not neutral and generally applicable, and therefore trigger strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause, whenever they treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise....

Second, whether two activities are comparable for purposes of the Free Exercise Clause must be judged against the asserted government interest that justifies the regulation at issue....

California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts, and indoor restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time.

Justice Kagan filed a 2-page dissent, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor. They said in part:

The First Amendment requires that a State treat religious conduct as well as the State treats comparable secular conduct. Sometimes finding the right secular analogue may raise hard questions. But not today. California limits religious gatherings in homes to three households. If the State also limits all secular gatherings in homes to three households, it has complied with the First Amendment. And the State does exactly that: It has adopted a blanket restriction on at home gatherings of all kinds, religious and secular alike. California need not, as the per curiam insists, treat at-home religious gatherings the same as hardware stores and hair salons—and thus unlike at-home secular gatherings, the obvious comparator here.

Chief Justice Roberts also dissented, without filing an opinion. Volokh Conspiracy blog has more on the decision.

Churches' Challenge to Minnesota COVID Orders Moves Ahead

In Northland Baptist Church of St. Paul, Minnesota v. Walz, (D MN, March 30, 2021), a Minnesota federal district court refused to dismiss at the pleading stage complaints by two churches and a pastor that Minnesota's COVID-19 orders treat religious services less favorably than comparable secular activities. The decision also dealt extensively with several procedural and jurisdictional issues, as well as with other challenges by business plaintiffs.

North Dakota Enacts Law To Limit Restrictions On Religious Exercise During Health Emergencies

On March 29, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum signed into law Senate Bill 2181 (full text) which limits the authority of the State Health Officer and the governor to issue disease control or other emergency orders that restrict the free exercise of religion.  Under the new law, an order may not:

(1) Substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless the order is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest;

(2) Treat religious conduct more restrictively than any secular conduct of reasonably comparable risk, unless the government demonstrates through clear and convincing scientific evidence that a particular religious activity poses an extraordinary health risk; or

(3) Treat religious conduct more restrictively than comparable secular conduct because of alleged economic need or benefit.

Williston Herald reported on the legislature's passage of the bill.

9th Circuit Upholds California Limits On In-Home Bible Study Groups

In Tandon v. Newsom, (9th Cir., March 30, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, refused to issue an emergency injunction pending appeal to prevent enforcement of California's COVID-19 limitations against appellants' in-home Bible study and communal worship sessions. The majority said in part:

[T]he district court concluded that the State reasonably distinguishes in-home private gatherings from the commercial activity Appellants assert is comparable. For example, the district court found that the State reasonably concluded that when people gather in social settings, their interactions are likely to be longer than they would be in a commercial setting; that participants in a social gathering are more likely to be involved in prolonged conversations; that private houses are typically smaller and less ventilated than commercial establishments; and that social distancing and mask-wearing are less likely in private settings and enforcement is more difficult.... Appellants do not dispute any of these findings. Therefore, we conclude that Appellants have not established that strict scrutiny applies to the gatherings restrictions.

Judge Bumatay dissented, saying in part:

Even if studying scripture at home risks some level of transmission of COVID-19, the exemptions for barbershops, tattoo and nail parlors, and other personal care businesses reveal that less-restrictive alternatives are available to California to mitigate that concern. If the State is truly concerned about the “proximity, length, and interaction” of private gatherings, as it claims, it could regulate those aspects of religious gatherings in a narrowly tailored way. But the one thing California cannot do is privilege tattoo parlors over Bible studies when loosening household limitations.

DC's Capacity Restrictions On Churches Held Invalid

In Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Bowser, (D DC, March 25, 2021), the D.C. federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against D.C.'s COVID-19 capacity restrictions on houses of worship, finding that they violate the 1st Amendment as well as RFRA. The limit of the lesser of 25% or 250 congregants particularly affects the  Basilica of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception which seats at least 3000 people. The court said in part:

In practical terms, this means that the Archdiocese’s churches must stop admitting parishioners once they become a quarter full, but Whole Foods or Target can take in as many customers as they wish while complying with social-distancing requirements. “[O]nce a State creates a favored class of businesses, as [the District] has done in this case, [it] must justify why houses of worship are excluded from that favored class.”....

The District’s restrictions are also problematic because the 250-person cap uniquely burdens churches. The Mayor’s order explained that the District set the hard cap at 250 based on the number of persons that “the largest restaurant” could serve at 25 percent capacity....   But as the District admits, “no restaurant in the District has a room that can hold 1,000 people.”

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Certiorari Denied In Church's Challenge To Illinois COVID Restrictions

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Elim Romanian Church v. Pritzker, (Docket No. 20-569, certiorari denied, 3/29/2021). (Order List).  In the case, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a church's challenge to Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's COVID-19 orders which restrict-- or in their latest form urge restriction-- on the size of worship services. (See prior posting.)

Scottish Court Invalidates COVID Regulations Closing Churches

In In the cause of Philip for Judicial Review of the closure of places of worship in Scotland, (Ct. Sess. O.H., March 24. 2021), Scotland's Outer House of the Court of Session held that Regulations closing places of worship during the COVID-19 pandemic violate petitioner's right to worship under Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court said in part:

[S]ince the Regulations do interfere with the constitutional right of the petitioners to worship, notwithstanding that they have as their primary purpose the protection of health and preservation of life, they will be beyond the constitutional competence of the respondents (at least insofar as the petitioners and the additional party are concerned) if that interference is not proportionate...

[W]ithout in any way questioning the science which underlay the respondents’ decision-making, I conclude that the respondents have failed to show that no less intrusive means than the Regulations were available to address their aim of reducing risk to a significant extent. Standing the advice they had at the time, they have not demonstrated why there was an unacceptable degree of risk by continuing to allow places of worship which employed effective mitigation measures and had good ventilation to admit a limited number of people for communal worship.... Even if I am wrong in reaching that conclusion, the respondents have in any event not demonstrated why it was necessary to ban private prayer, the reasons which were given for that recommendation being insufficient to withstand even the lowest degree of scrutiny.

Law & Religion UK and Christian Post report on the decision.

Anti-Mask Protesters Arrested At Religious Protest Assembly Sue

As reported by KREM News, three individuals who were arrested in September 2020 by Moscow, Idaho police for not wearing masks or social distancing at a protest have sued in an Idaho federal district court.  The complaint (full text) in Rench v. City of Moscow, (D ID, filed 3/24/2021) says that the arrests took place at a religious assembly organized by Christ Church "to sing praise to their God in a 'Psalm Sing' in front of the Moscow City Hall to protest the mask mandate in the Amended Public Health Emergency Order...." Plaintiffs contend that the arrests violated their free speech and free exercise rights, and say that the Public Health Order by its terms excluded constitutionally protected speech, assembly and religious activity.

Cert. Petition Filed In Maine Church's Challenge To COVID Limitations

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed on Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills. In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a church's interlocutory appeal of the denial of a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the Maine governor's COVID Orders. Those orders, which have been amended since the 1st Circuit's decision, continue to limit the number of persons that can gather at a faith-based event. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Canadian Province's Limits On Worship Services Are Upheld

In Beaudoin v. British Columbia, (BC Sup. Ct., March 18, 2021), a British Columbia trial court upheld against religious freedom challenges the COVID-19 Gathering and Events orders of the Canadian province's Provincial Health Officer.  The court said in part:

I find that Dr. Henry carefully considered the significant impacts of the impugned G&E Orders on freedom of religion, consulting with the inter-faith community to discuss and understand the impact of restrictions on gatherings and events on their congregations and religious practices....

Her decision was made in the face of significant uncertainty and required highly specialized medical and scientific expertise. The respondents submit, and I agree, that this is the type of situation that calls for a considerable level of deference....

There is a reasonable basis to conclude that there were no other reasonable possibilities that would give effect to the s. 2 Charter protections more fully, in light of the objectives of protecting health, and in light of the uncertainty presented by the Virus.

Although the impacts of the G&E Orders on the religious petitioners’ rights are significant, the benefits to the objectives of the orders are even more so. In my view, the orders represent a reasonable and proportionate balance.

Thus, the respondents have proven that the limits the G&E Orders place on the religious petitioners’ s. 2 Charter rights are justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

Cold Lake Sun editorializes on the decision.

California COVID Restrictions On Singing At Worship Services Upheld

In Calvary Chapel of Ukiahv. Newsom, (ED CA, March 10, 2021), a California federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against California's COVID-19 restriction on indoor singing and chanting during worship services. The court rejected plaintiffs' free exercise, free speech, equal protection and Establishment Clause claims. The court said in part:

[T]he State has now issued protocols allowing those who serve as performers during church services, presumably including choir members or soloists, to sing indoors subject to masking and distancing. Under these newest rules, the State argues, “worship services are treated more favorably than the entertainment industry.” ... To the extent one might question whether churches were being treated equivalently to the entertainment industry, that doubt appears to have been eliminated beyond a shadow of a doubt.

7th Circuit Denies Preliminary Injunction Against Prior Illinois Limits On Worship Services

In Cassell v. Snyders, (7th Cir., March 8, 2021), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to issue a preliminary injunction against a now-superseded Illinois COVID-19 order that prohibited public gatherings of more than ten people, including religious services. The court said in part:

Intervening authority from the Supreme Court offers plaintiffs a greater prospect for success on the merits of their First Amendment claim than either the district court or we had expected. See Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020). Yet recent Supreme Court authority has also indicated that equitable considerations weigh against granting a preliminary injunction at this time, when the prospect of irreparable injury to the plaintiffs is very low....

Even if the plaintiffs now appear more likely to succeed on the merits of their free exercise claim, there simply is no compelling need for preliminary relief against these long-expired orders, and there is every reason to expect that even if Illinois in the future believes some binding restrictions on worship services are needed, it will act with a close eye on the Supreme Court’s latest pronouncements on the subject, including the need for measures closely tailored to meet public health needs.

[Thanks to Jeff Pasek for the lead.]

Virginia Trial Court Rejects Religious Challenge To COVID-19 Restrictions On Churches

In Young v. Northam, 2021 Va. Cir. LEXIS 35 (VA Cir. Ct., Feb. 27, 2021), a Virginia state trial court refused to enjoin the Governor's most recent COVID-19 restrictions on churches. Finding that plaintiffs have not overcome the exception for health and safety in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the court said in part:

The Petitioners religious beliefs are genuine and sincere, but Executive Order # 72 does not prohibit assembly, the taking of communion, singing, praying nor restrict capacity in churches. St. Matthew states that "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." Matthew 18:20.

There are no capacity limits in Executive Order # 72 and non-religious gatherings have stricter requirements regardless of occurring indoors or outdoors. (12). Section (E) of the statute certainly contemplated that some temporary restrictions may be necessary in emergency situations.

The next issue, consistent with the statute, is whether the least restrictive means have been employed to further the compelling governmental interest. Executive Order # 72 exempts religious services from the otherwise-universal temporary gathering restrictions. The order indicates that individuals may be seated wherever and with whomever they want with appropriate physical distancing.

This court recognizes an honest distinction between an appropriate political debate that reflects rational disagreement with the Respondent's order and a judicial ruling that such order is unconstitutional. Therefore, the court holds that the Petitioners are not entitled to injunctive relief under the statute.

The court also rejected a 1st Amendment free exercise challenge.