On Remand From SCOTUS, California COVID Limits On Worship Services Again Upheld

In Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom, (CD CA, Dec. 21, 2020), a California federal district court, in a case on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, upheld California's COVID restrictions on houses of worship. The Supreme Court had called for reconsideration in light of its recent decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. The district court, distinguishing both Supreme Court and 9th Circuit cases, said in part:

The law remains that courts must first assess whether a law is “neutral or generally applicable.” Smith, 494 U.S. at 881. The Court finds that California’s Blueprint is. The Blueprint offers something the New York and Nevada Orders did not: the ability to legally congregate in unlimited numbers for worship—so long as that worship occurs outside. In so doing, the Blueprint treats religious activity better than comparable secular activity and even better than essential services. This is distinct from both the New York and Nevada restrictions and compels the conclusion that the Blueprint is neutral....

California’s Blueprint is also painstakingly tailored to address the risks of Covid-19 transmission specifically....

The First Amendment has not taken a sabbatical. Californians may still worship, attend services, pray, and otherwise exercise their religious freedoms. They just may not do so in ways that significantly increase the likelihood of transmission of a virus which has claimed more than three hundred thousand American lives in less than one year. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. The First Amendment may not be used to make it one.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

UPDATE: Over the objection of Judge O'Scannlain, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom, (9th Cir., Dec. 23, 2020), set a briefing schedule for the Church's motion for an injunction pending appeal that failed to grant temporary relief by Christmas.

Federal Court Refuses To Enjoin State COVID Enforcement Proceedings Against Church

In Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Cody, (ND CA, Dec. 18, 2020), a California federal district court, applying the Younger abstention doctrine, refused to issue a temporary restraining order against state court proceedings enforcing a state court's preliminary injunction against a church. The church "blatantly flouted" COVID restrictions on worship service, continuing to hold indoor services for large numbers of worshipers without effectively enforcing mask or social distancing requirements. In refusing the TRO, the court said in part:

Our Federalism properly places this dispute in the more-than-capable hands of the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Remands Church's Challenge To COVID Restrictions

In Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom,(US Sup. Ct., Dec. 3, 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court issued an Order treating the church's application for an injunction as a petition for certiorari before judgment, and granted the petition. It then vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Court's recent decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. In the case, a church challenged California Governor Gavin Newsom's COVID-19 restrictions on indoor worship services. (See prior posting.)  New York Times reports on the Supreme Court's Order.

Church Seeks Supreme Court Relief Against California COVID-19 Restrictions

As reported by Pasedena Now, Harvest Rock Church last Saturday filed an Emergency Application for an Injunction pending appeal (full text) with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Pasadena, California church is challenging Gov. Gavin Newsom's COVID-19 restrictions.

In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision refused to issue a preliminary injunction against Governor Newsom’s Orders that restrict in-person worship services. (See prior posting). Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

Pastor Was Validly Demoted and Terminated

In Kim v. Kwon, (CA App., Oct. 19, 2020), a California state appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision that plaintiffs are validly elected directors of Irvine Baptist Church and that they validly demoted and then terminated senior associate pastor David Kwon. The court said in part:

The [Ordained Deacons Committee] ... acted within the scope of its authority under the Church Constitution when it demoted and terminated Kwon....

True, the trial court did not determine whether the ODC had valid grounds to demote or terminate Kwon based on his performance of his ministerial duties. But this is a different question than whether it had the authority to do so. And the court was right to tread lightly there. “The establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as its California counterpart (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4), precludes civil courts from adjudicating [civil or] property disputes based on religious doctrine.” 

More Litigation Developments In Religious Institution Challenges To COVID-19 Restrictions

Suit was filed last week in an Oregon federal district court challenging Oregon's COVID-19 Orders and guidance that grant small public schools, but not small private or religious schools, an exemption from the ban on in-person instruction. The complaint (full text) in Hermiston Christian Center v. Brown, (D OR, filed 10/16/2020) asserts various 1st and 14th Amendment claims, including the charge that the Orders unlawfully target religious schools. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Becket announced that it filed suit last week in Lebovits v. Cuomo, (ND NY, filed 10/15/2020). The suit is brought on behalf of two young women and their Orthodox Jewish school.  It challenges New York City's lock down in zip codes in which there are micro-clusters of COVID-19.

Amistad Project announced that it filed suit over the weekend in Libertas Classical Ass'n v. Whitmer, (WD MI), on behalf of a K-12 Christian school in Hudsonville, MI. According to the press release:

... [T]he Whitmer Administration has made repeated, unreasonable demands on the school since September 4, including that kindergarteners always wear masks while in school, including during chapel and outdoor recess....

This violates the First Amendment rights of assembly and religion for the school's 265 students, as well as parents and staff.

In Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshar, (6th Cir., Oct. 19, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow a church and its congregants to obtain an appellate court ruling on a dispute that had essentially become moot.  In March 2020, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear had barred all religious services as part of the state's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Federal courts preliminarily enjoined the ban from going into effect and subsequently the Governor ended the ban. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

In Gish v. Newsom, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192714 (CD CA, Oct. 9, 2020), a California federal district court refused to reconsider its decision upholding the state's COVID-19 Orders that limit indoor religious services.

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.”

Seminary May Expel Students For Entering Same-Sex Marriages

In Maxon v. Fuller Theological Seminary, (CD CA, Oct. 7, 2020), a California federal district court held that the Religious Organization Exemption in Title IX applies to a seminary controlled by its own board of directors rather than by an outside religious organization. Thus, while Title IX was interpreted by the court to include a ban on discrimination on the basis gender stereotypes, the exemption allowed it to expel two students because they had entered same-sex marriages. Washington Times 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.

9th Circuit Upholds California's COVID Restrictions On Religious Services

 In Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom, (9th Cir., Oct. 1, 2020), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision refused to issue a preliminary injunction against Governor Gavin Newsom’s COVID-19 Orders that restrict in-person worship services. The majority said in part: 

The evidence that was before the district court does not support Harvest Rock’s arguments that the Orders accord comparable secular activity more favorable treatment than religious activity. The Orders apply the same restrictions to worship services as they do to other indoor congregate events, such as lectures and movie theaters....

Harvest Rock also contends that the Governor failed to provide a rationale for the more lenient treatment of certain secular activities, such as shopping in a large store. However, the Governor offered the declaration of an expert, Dr. James Watt, in support of the claim that the risk of COVID-19 is elevated in indoor congregate activities, including in-person worship services.

Judge O'Scannlain dissented, saying in part:

There is no doubt that California’s COVID-19 scheme ... imposes direct and severe burdens on religious practice within the State. And where a State imposes such burdens through measures that are not “neutral and of general applicability,” its actions must survive strict scrutiny.... Because California’s COVID-19 regulations patently disfavor religious practice when compared to analogous secular activities, I believe that the church is quite likely indeed to succeed on the merits of its challenge to such regulations.

Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

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.

9th Circuit Upholds California School Curriculum On Hinduism

 In California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. Torlakson, (9th Cir., Sept. 3, 2020), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a suit claiming that California's History-Social Science Standards and Framework incorrectly describe Hinduism and treat it negatively in relation to the treatment of other religions. Rejecting plaintiffs' free exercise claims, the court said in part:

Appellants allegations suggest at most that portions of the Standards and Framework contain material Appellants find offensive to their religious beliefs. .... Offensive content that does not penalize, interfere with, or otherwise burden religious exercise does not violate Free Exercise rights. 

The court also rejected equal protection, due process and establishment clause challenges. Education Week reports on the decision.

Challenge To California COVID-19 Limits On Church Services Rejected

 In Whitsitt v. Newsom, (ED CA, Aug. 19, 2020),a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a challenge to the California governor's COVID-19 orders that limited attendance at church service. Rejecting plaintiff's free exercise challenge, the court said in part:

Here, the Stay at Home Order and the subsequent guidelines are facially neutral regarding religion. The Order directs all residents to stay home “except as needed to maintain continuity of operations” of certain business sectors.... The Order exempts “[f]aith based services that are provided through streaming or other technology.” ... Although the Order expressly mentions religious services, it does so to exempt them from its restrictions. The mention of religious services in this context—to exempt them from the Stay at Home Order—does not transform the Order into a facially discriminatory one.

Negligence Claims Against Anti-Gay Church and Pastor Should Not Be Dismissed Under Anti-SLAPP Law

Fritz v. Jimenez, (CA App., Aug. 18, 2020), is a suit brought by individuals who staged protests against Verity Baptist Church and its pastor Roger Jimenez after Jimenez delivered and posted sermons praising the killing of nearly 50 people in a Florida gay night club. The protesters claim that they were subjected to physical violence, death threats and intimidation by church employees. Defendants asked the trial court to dismiss various claims under California's anti-SLAPP statute which is designed to quickly get rid of suits that are brought strategically to chill free speech. The trial court, on this theory, dismissed plaintiffs' claim of negligent supervision. The Court of Appeals reversed saying that the claim did not arise from defendants' exercise of free speech. The court said in part: 

The sermons of Jimenez provide for a clearer understanding of the situation in which the conduct by VBC and Jimenez’s agents and employees happened. However, the statements of Jimenez are not the focus of the negligence claim. Plaintiffs’ negligence claims are colorable even if none of Jimenez’s statements were contained on the complaint because the complaint would still set forth such regular occurrences of violence and intimidation that a claim for negligent supervision would be stated. Even so, plaintiffs are entitled to rely on Jimenez’s sermons and statements to help establish the foreseeability of physical violence and intimidation against them as a risk inherent in the way VBC and Jimenez conducted the enterprise....

The court also affirmed the trial court's refusal to dismiss plaintiffs' premises liability claim. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Church's Battle Against California Indoor Worship Ban Leads To Court Decisions, and Defiance

 As previously reported, last week church and its pastor filed suit in a California state trial court challenging on state constitutional grounds California's COVID-19 restrictions on worship services. A Thomas More Society press release recounts part of the developments since then:

Hours after Grace Community Church filed suit to invalidate Los Angeles County’s unconstitutional restrictions on churches, the county filed for a temporary restraining order to force the church to stop holding indoor services and comply with unreasonable and over-broad demands. Judge James Chalfant denied almost all of the county’s requests at the August 14 Los Angeles Superior Court hearing, agreeing with MacArthur and the church that it is the county’s burden to show why they should be permitted to infringe on the constitutionally protected rights of churches to freely exercise religion....

 Attorneys for Grace Community Church explained that Los Angeles County was being unreasonable in its demands, and offered to have the congregation comply with face mask wearing and social distancing indoors until the matter could be fully heard.... The judge agreed and set the full hearing for September 4, 2020, ordering the church to have congregants wear masks and social distance between family groups indoors.

The county immediately filed for a writ of mandate with the state court of appeals seeking to override the trial court's order so that it could enforce the COVID-19 ban on indoor church services. The Court of Appeals quickly stayed the trial court's order to the extent it prevented the county from enforcing the ban,  In County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, (CA App., Aug. 15, 2020), the court said in part:

At this very preliminary stage in this litigation, the County has demonstrated a likelihood that it will prevail on the merits of enforcing its July 18, 2020 Health Order. The County's Health Order is presumed to be constitutional unless its "unconstitutionality clearly, positively and unmistakably appears."

According to Religion News Service:

On Sunday morning [Aug. 16], the church met anyway — inside, unmasked, and without adhering to social distancing.

[Pastor] MacArthur noted the church’s defiance during the service, saying, “the good news is that you’re here, you’re not distancing, and you’re not wearing masks.” The congregation cheered in response.

Suit Challenges California COVID-19 Limits On Worship Services

 A church and its pastor filed suit this week in a California state trial court challenging on state constitutional grounds California's COVID-19 restrictions on worship services. The complaint (full text) in Grace Community Church of the Valley v. Newsom, (CA Super. Ct., filed 8/12/2020) reads in part:

13. It is time for California to recognize that disfavored religious minorities are not second-class citizens. It is time for California to explain how it can justify banning worship to prevent the spread of a disease (with an overall mortality rate of 0.02%) while it is fine for protestors to spread that disease like wildfire.... In a society hostile to religion, banning worship might be justified to prevent deaths. But how can California—the land of the Missions—justify unfairly imposing the burden of lowering coronavirus infection rates (not death rates) on worshippers?

14. The California State Constitution ... specifically protects the individual right to free exercise of religion. The State would not be justified to place restrictions disparately and unequally in the manner it has even against a regular business or gathering; however, Grace Community Church and every other house of worship in California enjoy heightened protection because our Founders recognized that the church has throughout world history been the target of secular kings and tyrants, not unlike Gavin Newsom....

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Catholic Group Threatens Litigation Over BLM Attempts To Remove References To Famous California Priest

One of the historical figures now seen as problematic by the Black Lives Matter Movement is the 18th century Catholic priest Father Junipero Serra, who was canonized in 2015 by Pope Francis during his trip to the United States. As explained by an RNS article earlier this year:

While Serra is credited with spreading the Catholic faith across what is now California, critics say Serra was part of an imperial conquest that beat and enslaved Native Americans.

Serra, who was born in Spain, came to the Americas in 1749, and in 1769 he founded the first of what would become 21 missions along the California coast.

Native Americans brought into the mission to be evangelized were not allowed to leave the grounds. Many labored for no pay. There is evidence of beatings, imprisonment and other abuse at the hands of the missionaries.

In light of this, the city of San Buenaventura last month voted to remove a statue of Serra that stands in front of City Hall. Recently efforts have been made to remove Serra from the city's police badges and the Ventura County seal. The Thomas More Society contends that these moves are anti-Catholic, and this week it sent a demand letter (full text) to the city and county, saying in part:

should Ventura remove Fr. Serra from its Seal, its Police Badges, or any other similar prominent municipal location, we will bring a claim seeking to enjoin such conduct under the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and seek our attorneys’ fees. Our firm was lead counsel in defending the Mt. Soledad Cross in San Diego—which proudly still stands today—and we have extensive experience in ensuring that our attorneys’ fees are paid when we prevail. Thank you for considering the below as you take subsequent action during these times of national and local anti-Catholic sentiment....

For California Catholics generally, Fr. Serra is “the Apostle of California,” “the first saint to be canonized on U.S. soil and by the first pope from the Americas.” ... For them, the attacks on Fr. Serra “call[] to mind very similar activities at earlier stages of American history. In the mid to late nineteenth century, anti-Catholicism was rampant in the United States, due in part to prejudices inherited from Protestantism but also due to the arrival of large groups of immigrants from Catholic countries,  who were considered inferior.”... For them, “how can [they] not see the ugly specter of anti-Catholicism raising its head” again?

For all Catholics, the only reasonable way to view the attacks on Fr. Serra are as attacks on a psychological mascot, or a “convenient scapegoat and whipping boy,” for those who hate Catholics and who hate that they evangelized native peoples.

Life Site News reports on these developments.

County Sues Church For Violation of COVID Orders

The county of Ventura, California filed suit in a state trial court yesterday seeking a temporary restraining order and an injunction against a church and its pastor for holding indoor worship services in violation of state and local COVID-19 orders.  The complaint (full text) in County of Ventura v. Godspeak Calvary Chapel, (CA Super. Ct., file 8/5/2020), alleges in part:

The wrongful conduct of defendants ..., unless and until enjoined and restrained by the court, will cause and continue to cause great and irreparable injury to the general public ... by creating a significant risk of further community spread of COVID-19, including hospitalizations and deaths, which in turn is likely to result in continued and further restrictions on businesses and other operations and activities within Ventura County, detrimentally affecting the quality of life of the entire community.

Ventura County Star reports on the lawsuit.

TRO Denied In Church's Suit Over California COVID Limits on Worship

On Friday, a California federal district court refused, on procedural grounds, to issue a temporary restraining order to a California church that filed suit challenging Governor Newsom's COVID-19 orders restricting worship services. In Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom, (CD CA, July 20, 2020), the court in a two-page opinion said in part:

Harvest Rock seeks this injunctive relief without providing notice to Governor Newsom of either the Complaint or the TRO, yet fails to satisfy the requirements to obtain such an injunction without notice.

Pasedena Now reports on the decision.

California COVID-19 Limits On Worship Services Challenged

Suit was filed last week in a California federal district court challenging Gov. Gavin Newsom's various COVID-19 restrictions on indoor worship services. The complaint (full text) in Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom, (CD CA, filed 7/17/2020), points to the total prohibition on indoor worship services in 30 counties, numerical and capacity limits on worship services in other counties, a ban on singing or chanting during indoor worship services, a ban on small-group Bible studies in private homes, and discriminatory limits on the kinds of activities that can be carried on in church buildings. The complaint alleges violations of free exercise, freedom of assembly and free speech rights, as well as of the Establishment Clause, Equal Protection, and Guarantee Clause. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.