Church's Challenge To California COVID-19 Limits Rejected Again

 In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, (SD CA, Oct. 15, 2020), a California federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a church that challenged California's current COVID-19 restrictions on worship services. The state limits plaintiffs’ indoor worship services to the lesser of 25% of building capacity or 100 people. The church had earlier unsuccessfully appealed a challenge to an earlier version of state restrictions all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. (See prior posting.) According to the district court:

Plaintiffs now argue ... that California’s “scientific pronouncements” are “largely baseless,” and that by “all reasonable scientific measurements,” the COVID-19 health emergency “has ended.” ... They also argue the State’s restrictions treat certain secular businesses more favorably than religious organizations and have been enforced in a discriminatory manner.

The court again rejected plaintiff's arguments, saying in part:

At bottom, Plaintiffs’ renewed motion asks the Court to second guess decisions made by California officials concerning whether COVID-19 continues to present a health emergency and whether large indoor gatherings with singing pose a risk to public health. Although not binding, the Court finds Chief Justice Roberts’s reasoning in this case to be compelling. The background set forth above shows the State and County “are actively shaping their response to changing facts on the ground.” ...  And the evidence demonstrates the COVID-19 pandemic remains an area “fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” where the State and County’s latitude “must be especially broad.”

Rockland County (NY) Synagogues Sue Over Targeted COVID-19 Order

Another lawsuit challenging New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's Oct. 6 Executive Order targeting Covid-19 hot spots was filed on Wednesday by three Hasidic Jewish congregations in Rockland County (NY).  The complaint (full text) in Congregation Yesheos Yakov v. State of New York, (SD NY, filed 10/14/2020), alleges that the Order was directed at "activities of specific minority religious communities during one of the most important religious holidays in their faith." Alleging numerous violations of the 1st and 14th Amendments, the complaint says in part:

2. The Governor freely and repeatedly admitted his decision was not driven by science, or data, but, by “fear.”

3. Based on this fear, and not on any epidemiological or other objective data, Governor Cuomo’s Executive Order No. 202.68 ... established colorcoded COVID-19 “hot-spot” zoning areas subject to gathering limits and restrictions that singled out as “hot-spots” known enclaves of the Hasidic and strictly-observant Jewish Orthodox communities.

PJ Media reports on the lawsuit.

Cert. Filed In Church's Challenge To Illinois COVID-19 Orders

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed today with the U.S. Supreme Court in Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, (cert. filed 10/14/2020).  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.)  Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for Supreme Court review.                

DC Restrictions On Outdoor Church Services Violate RFRA

 In Capitol Hill Baptist Church v. Bowser, (D DC, Oct. 9, 2020), a D.C. federal district court issued a preliminary injunction allowing plaintiff church to hold outdoor services, with masks and appropriate social distancing, beyond the 100-person maximum set out in the D.C. mayor's COVID-19 restrictions. The court concluded that current restrictions on the church's outdoor services violate RFRA.  The court said in part:

The District proposes that under its current restrictions the Church could “hold multiple services, host a drive-in service, or broadcast the service online or over the radio,” as other faith communities in the District have done.... But the District misses the point. It ignores the Church’s sincerely held (and undisputed) belief about the theological importance of gathering in person as a full congregation. The “substantial burden inquiry asks whether the government has substantially burdened religious exercise . . . not whether [the Church] is able to engage in other forms of religious exercise.”... The District may think that its proposed alternatives are sensible substitutes. And for many churches they may be. But “it is not for [the District] to say that [the Church’s] religious beliefs” about the need to meet together as one corporal body “are mistaken or insubstantial.”... It is for the Church, not the District or this Court, to define for itself the meaning of “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.”...

The court made clear that its order applied only to the church that was plaintiff in this case. 

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Supreme Court Sends Case On Medical Abortion Access Back To District Court

In Food and Drug Administration v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, (Sup. Ct., Oct. 8, 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hold in abeyance pending further District Court review the FDA's motion to stay an injunction that had been issued against it.  In the case, a Maryland federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement during the COVID-19 public health emergency of Maryland's in-person requirements that bar women seeking a medical abortion from obtaining mifepristone through a mail-order or retail pharmacy or to receive the medication by mail from their healthcare provider. The 4th Circuit refused to stay the injunction pending appeal. (See prior posting.) The Supreme Court said: 

The Government argues that, at a minimum, the injunction is overly broad in scope, given that it applies nationwide and for an indefinite duration regardless of the improving conditions in any individual State. Without indicating this Court’s views on the merits of the District Court’s order or injunction, a more comprehensive record would aid this Court’s review. The Court will therefore hold the Government’s application in abeyance to permit the District Court to promptly consider a motion by the Government to dissolve, modify, or stay the injunction, including on the ground that relevant circumstances have changed. ...  The District Court should rule within 40 days of receiving the Government’s submission.

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, saying in part:

In response to the pandemic, state and local officials have imposed unprecedented restrictions on personal liberty, including severe limitations on First Amendment rights. Officials have drastically limited speech, banning or restricting public speeches, lectures, meetings, and rallies. The free exercise of religion also has suffered previously unimaginable restraints, and this Court has stood by while that has occurred.

SCOTUSblog reports on the decision.

Another Religious Challenge To California's COVID-19 Orders

 In a suit filed late last month, a Catholic priest has challenged California Governor Gavin Newsom's COVID-19 emergency orders.  the 77-page complaint (full text) in Burfitt v. Newsom, (CA Super. Ct., filed 9/29/2020) charges that the Governor's orders violate various provisions of the California state constitution, including free exercise, equal protection, liberty of speech and equal protection.  Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Catholic and Jewish Organizations Sue New York Governor Over New COVID-19 Restrictions

On Tuesday of this week, New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo announced new restrictions in spots in which clusters of COVD-19 cases have broken out. Areas include parts of Brooklyn and Queens and parts of Broome, Orange and Rockland Counties. The restrictions target mass gatherings and houses of worship, as well as businesses and schools.  In response, two important religious entities-- one Catholic and one Jewish-- have filed separate suits challenging the new Order.

The complaint (full text) in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, (ED NY, filed 10/8/2020) reads in part:

The governor now proposes to limit in-person attendance at all "Houses of Worship" to the lesser of 10 people or 25% of church capacity in certain designated geographical areas, and to the lesser of 25 people or 33% of church capacity in others. As applied to the Diocese, whose impacted churches overwhelmingly seat upwards of 500 to 1000 parishioners, the percentage caps ... are rendered wholly illusory, and thus the churches will be placed in the untenable position of limiting attendance at Sunday mass and other fundamental Catholic services such as baptisms, weddings and funerals, to just 10 worshippers in designated "red" zones or just 25 worshippers in designated "orange" zones. Meanwhile, all other essential businesses can remain open without any capacity limitations whatsoever....

ABC7 News reports on the lawsuit. 

The complaint (full text) in Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo, (ED NY, filed 10/8/2020) alleges in part:

5. Defendant’s Executive Order and the restrictions it contains will disrupt the religious observance of tens of thousands of Orthodox Jews in New York State, depriving them of their religious worship and holiday observance. The Executive Order requires enforcement of its restrictions to begin on Friday, October 9, which is Hoshanah Rabbah, the first of these three holidays.

6. Defendant has imposed these onerous and discriminatory new restrictions despite the fact that even he concedes he has not enforced the existing restrictions on houses of worship that already impose capacity limits and health requirements. Plaintiffs have completely complied with these rules, and Defendant does not contend otherwise.

Courthouse News Service reports on the suit.

UPDATE: Temporary restraining orders were denied in both cases on Oct. 9. See Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188459.

New Jersey COVID Limits On Indoor Church Services Are Upheld

In Robinson v. Murphy, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185070 ( NJ, Oct. 2, 2020), a New Jersey federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction in a suit challenging COVID-19 Orders of the governor of New Jersey. The Orders limit the permitted number of worshipers at indoor religious services and require masks at services. Rejecting free exercise challenges, the court said in part:

[T]he challenged measures are subject to rational basis review because they are generally applicable and neutral laws that burden secular and religious activity alike. The State's policies are designed to combat the spread of COVID-19 in New Jersey given the current understanding of the virus which the Court finds is undoubtedly a legitimate governmental interest....

Furthermore, ... the laws are not substantially underinclusive requiring the application of strict scrutiny, as the indoor gatherings restrictions contain similar exceptions for religious purposes and for secular purposes, indoor religious gatherings have higher maximum capacities than secular indoor gatherings, and, as Plaintiffs themselves acknowledge, there are both feasibility and religious purpose exceptions included in the mask requirements.

Plaintiffs, a priest and a rabbi, had also argued that the orders violate the Establishment Clause:

Plaintiffs assert that the orders violate the Establishment Clause because Defendants are attempting to dictate the precise manner in which Plaintiffs and their congregants worship. They further contend that "by mandating crude and medically useless face coverings," Defendants have made it difficult to say mass or teach the Jewish faith.... The Court finds that the indoor gatherings restrictions and mask requirements pass constitutional muster.

The court, in addition, rejected free speech, equal protection and due process challenges.

Preliminary Injunction Denied In Suit Targeting Colorado's COVID-19 Limits On Size of Religious Gatherings

On Monday, a challenge to Colorado's COVID-19 orders was filed.  In a 98-page complaint, a religious conference center and affiliated Bible college claim that Colorado's limitation on the number of persons who can attend in-person religious services violates its 1st and 14th Amendment rights. The complaint (full text) in Andrew Wommack Ministries, Inc. v. Polis, (D CO, filed 9/28/2020), alleges unconstitutional discrimination between religious gatherings and non-religious gatherings, as well as between the Ministries' religious and nonreligious gatherings in the same facilities, giving examples such as:

178. Under the Governor’s Orders, AWMI’s volunteers may provide nonreligious counseling, social services, and other necessities of life for women constituents of Life Network’s Colorado Springs Pregnancy Center and Choices Pregnancy Center may be administered in unlimited numbers, provided only that social distancing is satisfied.

179. But, if volunteers associated with AWMI and Charis Bible College students transition from providing these women with counseling, social services, food, clothing, and other necessities of life to providing them spiritual counseling, spiritual food in the form of communion, or otherwise transitions to a religious worship service with the same women in the same room, the Governor’s Orders would automatically subject them to criminal penalties for hosting an impermissible worship service if there is more than 175 women in the room.

The complaint says that speedy relief is required:

4. The Governor’s Orders interfere with and place a cloud of potential criminal and civil legal action over AWMI’s upcoming Pastor’s Conference scheduled to begin at 7:00 PM on October 5, 2020. In addition to outside pastors and ministers who are invited to the conference, attendance at the conference is a required part of the education program for all 652 students at Charis Bible College.

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

On Tuesday, in a 7-page order (full text), a Colorado federal district judge denied a preliminary injunction, pointing out:

United States District Judge Raymond Moore recently rejected Plaintiff’s arguments in High Plains Harvest Church v. Polis.... Additionally, the Seventh Circuit recently rejected a church’s argument that similar public health laws unconstitutionally favored secular activity

Plaintiff immediately filed a Notice of Appeal.

Church Challenges D.C.'s COVID-19 Orders

The first suit by a church challenging the District of Columbia's COVID-19 Orders was filed last week by an 850-member evangelical congregation.  The D.C. Orders limit the number of persons who can gather for religious services. The complaint (full text) in Capitol Hill Baptist Church v. Bowser, (D DC, filed 9/22/2020), alleges in part:

For nearly 2,000 years, Christians have gathered each Sunday throughout the year in observance of Christ’s resurrection from the dead on the first day of the week, and the physical gathering of the church is central to that celebration. Indeed, the Greek word translated as “church” in our English versions of the Christian scriptures is “ekklesia,” which literally means “assembly.”... 

As with other communities of Christian faith around the country, CHBC believes that a central part of following Christ is worshipping together in the same physical space.

The suit alleges violations of the 1st Amendment, the 5th Amendment and RFRA. Washington Post reports on the lawsuit.

Ohio Law Bans COVID Orders That Close Houses of Worship

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine yesterday signed into law HB272 (full text) which prohibits any public official from issuing an order to close all places of worship in the state or in a geographic region of the state. The bill responds to actions in other states closing churches to prevent the spread of COVID-19.  AP reports on the Governor's action.

California Christian School Must Abide By COVID-19 Restrictions

 In County of Fresno v. Immanuel Schools, (CA Super. Ct., Sept. 15, 2020), a California state trial court judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering a 600-student Christian school near Fresno, CA to cease holding in-person classes as required by state and local COVID-19 orders. The court said in part:

United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has observed in a recent consequential concurring opinion that “[t]he precise question of when restrictions on particular’social activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement. Our Constitution principally entrusts ‘[t]he safety and the health of the people’ to the politically accountable officials of the States ‘to guard and protect.’ When those officials ‘undertake[] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,’ their latitude ’must be especially broad.’” (South Bay United Pentacostal Church V. Newsom (2020)....

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Mask-In-School Requirement Challenged On Free Exercise Grounds

Suit was filed last week in an Ohio state trial court challenging as too narrow the religious exemption from Ohio's COVID-19 mask requirement in schools. The complaint (full text) in Miller v. Himes, (Putnam Cty. Com Pl., filed Sept. __, 2020), contends that the exemption for students "when an established sincerely held religious requirement exists which does not permit a facial covering" violates their free exercise rights. A school district denied an exemption to one of the plaintiffs even though she had a sincerely held religious belief  opposing masks. The district took the position that a belief is different from a religious requirement.  The suit also challenges the school mask requirement on various other grounds, including compelled speech and parental rights claims. Cincinnati Enquirer reports on the lawsuit.

1st Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In COVID-19 Worship Service Limitation Challenge

 The U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In May, a Maine federal district court a Maine federal district court rejected a church's First Amendment challenge to Maine Governor Janet Mills' COVID-19 order which at that time prohibited religious gatherings of more than ten people. (See prior posting.)  WBAI News reports on the oral arguments.

California Ban On Indoor Religious Services Upheld

In Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom, (CD CA, Sept. 2, 2020), a California federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to a church challenging the state's COVID-19 orders that prohibit indoor church services.  The court said in part:

Because the Orders restrict indoor religious services similarly to or less than comparable secular activities, it is subject to rational basis review, which it easily passes: by limiting certain activities, the Orders reduce person-to-person contact, which in turn furthers the interest of reducing COVID-19 spread. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Claim. 

The court also rejected Establishment Clause and free speech challenges.

7th Circuit: COVID-19 Order Exempting Religious Services Is Valid

 In Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker, (7th Cir., Sept. 3, 2020), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments by the Illinois Republican Party that Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's COVD-19 Order limiting gatherings (including political gatherings) to 50 people is unconstitutional because there is an exemption from the limit for religious services. The court, denying a preliminary injunction, said in part:

A careful look at the Supreme Court’s Religion Clause cases, coupled with the fact that EO43 is designed to give greater leeway to the exercise of religion, convinces us that the speech that accompanies religious exercise has a privileged position under the First Amendment, and that EO43 permissibly accommodates religious activities....

Because the exercise of religion involves more than simple speech, the equivalency urged on us by the Republicans between political speech and religious exercise is a false one.... Free exercise of religion enjoys express constitutional protection, and the Governor was entitled to carve out some room for religion, even while he declined to do so for other activities.

Jurist reports on the decision.  [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Kentucky AG Says Closing Religious Schools In COVID Pandemic Is Unconstitutional

Last month, Kentucky's Attorney General issued Opinion OAG-20-13 (Aug. 19, 2020) concluding that state or local officials may not order the closure of religiously affiliated schools that comply with reasonable social distancing and hygiene guidelines during the COVID pandemic. The Opinion says in part:

Given the central importance of religious education to faith communities, any order by a state or local official to close a religiously affiliated school likely would “prohibit[] the free exercise” of religion in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, especially if the government continues its arbitrary manner of picking and choosing which institutions must close and which may remain open to the public. U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV.

In addition, such an order likely would violate Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, KRS 446.350, which provides that the government may not “substantially burden” a sincerely held religious belief “unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.”...

Religiously affiliated schools in the Commonwealth have pledged to heed these expert recommendations, and guidance to wear face coverings, wash hands frequently, and maintain social distancing of six feet. For that reason, and considering that various other activities and gatherings may move forward—it is difficult to imagine how closing religiously affiliated schools could pass Constitutional or statutory muster....

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via EpidemicLaw for the lead.]

FDA Asks SCOTUS To Stay Injunction On Medical Abortion Access

Yesterday the federal government filed with the U.S. Supreme Court an Application For A Stay of An Injunction (full text) in American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In the case, a Maryland federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement during the COVID-19 public health emergency of Maryland's in-person requirements that bar women seeking a medical abortion from obtaining mifepristone through a mail-order or retail pharmacy or to receive the medication by mail from their healthcare provider. The 4th Circuit refused to stay the injunction pending appeal. (See prior posting.) In its Application, the FDA argued in part:

Given that surgical methods of abortion remain widely available, the enforcement of longstanding safety requirements for a medication abortion during the first ten weeks of pregnancy does not constitute a substantial obstacle to abortion access, even if the COVID-19 pandemic has made obtaining any method of abortion in person somewhat riskier.

 The Hill reports on the Application. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Court Enjoins DOE Rule Favoring Funding of Private Schools Under CARES Act

In State of Washington v. DeVos, (WD WA, Aug. 21, 2020), a Washington federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a Guidance and an Interim Final Rule issued under the CARES Act by the Department of Education. The rule essentially encourages use of a formula that has the effect of increasing the proportion of CARES Act funding going to private schools (including religious schools), at the expense of public schools. Education Week reports on the decision. [Thanks to Mel Kaufman for the lead.]

Oregon's COVID-19 Limits On Religious Schools Upheld

 The Oregonian reports that on Aug. 20, an Oregon federal district court in Horizon Christian School et al v. State of Oregon denied a request for a temporary restraining order to allow three Christian schools to reopen in violation of Gov. Kate Brown's COVID-19 executive order.  In what was apparently an opinion delivered orally from the bench, the court said in part:

In my view the religious institutions here in K-through-12 aren’t being treated in any way differently than public K-through-12 institutions...

The harm the state is trying to prevent is death and not just death as in a few, but the possibility of a widespread pandemic killing our most vulnerable citizens...