Churches Sue Over North Carolina COVID-19 Order

Two churches and an organization representing a number of churches filed suit yesterday in a North Carolina federal district court seeking to enjoin enforcement of  North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper's COVID-19 Order banning indoor religious worship services comprised of more than ten people. The complaint (full text) in Berean Baptist Church v. Cooper, (ED NC, filed 5/14/2020), alleges that the governor's orders are unconstitutional:

because they treat religious gatherings less favorably than similar secular gatherings, virtually banning religious assembly, are not narrowly tailored, and do not permit less restrictive means to achieve the government’s interest without burdening Plaintiffs’ rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

Plaintiffs also filed a Memorandum in Support of their motion for a TRO (full text). WSOC TV reports on the lawsuit.

Maine Ban On Religious Gatherings Over 10 Persons Is Upheld

In Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, (D ME, May 9, 2020), a Maine federal district court refused to issue a temporary restraining order against Maine Governor Janet Mills' COVID-19 order which prohibits religious gatherings of more than ten people. The court rejected plaintiff's free exercise, Establishment Clause and free speech challenges to the Order.

Pastor Sues Over COVID-19 Orders and Conditions of Bond

In Louisiana, Pastor Tony Spell, who has defied state COVID-19 stay-at-home orders by holding large church services at Life Tabernacle Church in Central, Louisiana, has filed suit against Governor John Bel Edwards and other officials seeking a temporary restraining order allowing him to continue to hold services.  The suit challenges both the Governor's emergency orders and special conditions of bond imposed on Spell after he was charged with nearly running over a protester with his church bus. Those special conditions include compliance with the Governor's orders. The complaint (full text) in Spell v. Edwards, (MD LA, filed 5/7/2020) alleges in part:

There has been no factual determination made that Pastor Spell has actually violated the ambiguous and contradictorily-worded Emergency Orders, but Defendants are enforcing by penalties and home incarceration the Emergency Orders against him as if alleged violations were proven fact by the "end run" of a misplaced "special condition of bond," currently imposed by a Louisiana State District Court judge. Furthermore Defendants have explicitly failed and refused to even allow argument regarding the discriminatory and disparately applied orders against Pastor Spell and Life Tabernacle Church while allowing local and similarly situated non-religious businesses-"big box" retailers, groceries and hardware stores to continue business accommodating gatherings, crowds of more than ten (10) people or of any limit whatsoever, without the enforcement of any "social distancing," or other measures supposedly required by the Emergency Orders.

WBRZ News reports on the lawsuit.

TRO Issued Against Kentucky In-Person Worship Service Restriction

In Tabernacle Baptist Church, Inc. of Nicholasville, Kentucky v. Beshear, (ED KY, May 8, 2020), a Kentucky federal district court issued a state-wide temporary restraining order enjoining the state of Kentucky from enforcing the governor's COVID-19 ban on mass gatherings with respect to in-person religious services that comply with applicable social distancing and hygiene guidelines. The court said in part:

The prohibition on mass gatherings is not narrowly tailored as required by Lukumi. There is ample scientific evidence that COVID-19 is exceptionally contagious. But evidence that the risk of contagion is heightened in a religious setting any more than a secular one is lacking. If social distancing is good enough for Home Depot and Kroger, it is good enough for in-person religious services which, unlike the foregoing, benefit from constitutional protection.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the decision.

6th Circuit Enjoins Ban On In-Person Worship Services

In Roberts v. Neace, (6th Cir., May 9, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction barring enforcement pending appeal of Kentucky Governor Andrew Beshear's COVID-19 order banning in-person church services at Maryville Baptist Church. A week ago, in another opinion, the same court barred the ban on drive-in services. The court now noted:

In the week since our last ruling, the Governor has not answered our concerns that the secular activities permitted by the order pose the same public-health risks as the kinds of in-person worship barred by the order. 

Earlier in its opinion, the court explained:

The orders allow “life-sustaining” operations and don’t include worship services in the definition. And many of the serial exemptions for secular activities pose comparable public health risks to worship services. For example: The exception for “life-sustaining” businesses allows law firms, laundromats, liquor stores, gun shops, airlines, mining operations, funeral homes, and landscaping businesses to continue to operate so long as they follow social-distancing and other health-related precautions.... But the orders do not permit soul-sustaining group services of faith organizations, even if the groups adhere to all the public health guidelines required of the other services. 

Keep in mind that the Church and its congregants just want to be treated equally....  The Governor has offered no good reason for refusing to trust the congregants who promise to use care in worship in just the same way it trusts accountants, lawyers, and laundromat workers to do the same.

Come to think of it, aren’t the two groups of people often the same people—going to work on one day and going to worship on another? How can the same person be trusted to comply with social-distancing and other health guidelines in secular settings but not be trusted to do the same in religious settings?

... Nor does it make a difference that faith-based bigotry did not motivate the orders. The constitutional benchmark is “government neutrality,” not “governmental avoidance of bigotry.”

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

Trump On COVID-19 Restrictions On Worship Services

On Sunday, President Trump answered questions for nearly two hours at a Fox News Virtual Town Hall, televised from the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. (Transcript of full Town Hall.) Here is what the President had to say about state restrictions on in-person worship services:

VIEWER:  Hi, Mr. President.  My husband and I both work at our local church, and I think a lot of us churchgoers are just wondering when we might be able to get back to an in-person church service.  Do you have any idea when this might be?

THE PRESIDENT:  I hope it’s going to be very soon, because I’m seeing things that I don’t like seeing.  I see some churches — they are literally staying in their car with the window closed.  I guess it comes out through the radio, the service.  And they were getting arrested, and they’re sitting in a car, and the cars are even far away.  And they say, “Close your windows.”  So it has to come in electronically, and I’m saying, “Why can’t they do that?”

Or they’ll go in a field, some field, and they’ll be — they’ll have a good minister, pastor, or could be a rabbi, could be a person of faith, and what happens is, in some places — not in all places — I would say in most places they really sympathize.  But I do.

And I’ve been listening to services over the last four or five weeks.  Some very, very good people.  And everybody knows who I’ve been listening to.  And we go different person.  Last week it was Cardinal Dolan at St Patrick’s Cathedral, a place I’m very familiar with.  But we’ve had pastors and ministers.

I will say this: It’s wonderful to watch people over a laptop, but it’s not like being at a church.  And we have to get our people back to churches, and we’re going to start doing it soon.

Q    The Attorney General sent a memo directing U.S. attorneys to be on the lookout for health restrictions that could interfere with constitutional rights.  There are a lot of people who cheered that because, you know, they do want to go back to church, and as you’re talking about.  But there are others who fear he might be encouraging people to do things that might be unsafe at the time when some states are going up.

THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  No, he’s not — well, there’s not too many states that I know of that are going up.  Almost everybody is headed in the right direction....

Court Rejects Challenge To Illinois 10-Person Limit On Religious Services

In Cassell v. Snyders, (ND IL, May 3, 2020), an Illinois federal district court upheld against constitutional attack Illinois Governor J.R. Pritzker's COVID-19 Order which, as amended after the filing of this lawsuit, allows religious worship services of up to ten people if they comply with social distancing precautions. In denying plaintiffs injunctive relief, the court said in part:

The Court is mindful that the religious activities permitted by the April 30 Order are imperfect substitutes for an in-person service where all eighty members of Beloved Church can stand together, side-by-side, to sing, pray, and engage in communal fellowship. Still, given the continuing threat posed by COVID-19, the Order preserves relatively robust avenues for praise, prayer and fellowship and passes constitutional muster. Until testing data signals that it is safe to engage more fully in exercising our spiritual beliefs (whatever they might be), Plaintiffs, as Christians, can take comfort in the promise of Matthew 18:20—“For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” ...

Ultimately, then, the Court concludes that the April Order qualifies as a neutral, generally applicable law. It therefore withstands First Amendment scrutiny so long as “it is supported by a rational basis.” ... Given the importance of slowing the spread of COVID-19 in Illinois, the Order satisfies that level of scrutiny, and Plaintiffs do not seriously argue otherwise. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise claim is unlikely to succeed on the merits.

The court also rejected state RFRA and other state law challenges. WTTW News reports on the decision.

Priest Sues Challenging New Jersey COVID-19 Order

Last week, a New Jersey Catholic priest filed suit challenging New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy's COVID-19 Order which has led to the closure of all Catholic churches in the state. The complaint (full text) in Robinson v. Murphy, (D NJ, filed 4/30/2020), alleging violations of the 1st and 14th Amendments, seeks a temporary restraining order preventing the state from imposing different restrictions on religious gatherings than it does on gatherings at "essential" commercial businesses.  NJ101.5 News reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: On July 23, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint (full text) in the case. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing.

Pastors Challenge Maryland's COVID-19 Limits On Worship Services

As reported by the Baltimore Sun:

Maryland politicians, pastors and business owners banded together Saturday afternoon to file a sweeping federal lawsuit aimed at ending restrictions enacted by Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan in response to the coronavirus.

The lawsuit argues that the governor’s orders banning large gatherings and closing most businesses violate constitutional and federal laws protecting commerce, freedom of assembly, the right to protest and the right to practice their religion.

The 56-page complaint (full text) in Antietam Battlefield KOA v. Hogan, (D MD, filed 5/2/2020) includes nine pastors and a deacon among the 19 plaintiffs.It alleges in part that the Governor's ten-person limit on gatherings for religious worship violates plaintiffs free exercise rights and violates the Establishment Clause by dictating the manner in which Christians and churches must worship.

6th Circuit Allows Drive-In Church Services While Appeal Is Pending

In Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, (6th Cir., May 2, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals granted an injunction pending appeal against enforcement of the governor's COVID-19 Order insofar as it prohibits drive-in services at the Maryville Baptist Church. However the Church must comply with the social distancing and hygiene guidelines for so-called "life-sustaining" organizations. A Kentucky federal district court had refused to grant a TRO in order to permit in-person services (see prior posting). The Court of Appeals would not extend its injunction to in-person services either.  In allowing drive-in services, the 6th Circuit said in part:

The exception for “life-sustaining” businesses allows law firms, laundromats, liquor stores, and gun shops to continue to operate so long as they follow social-distancing and other health-related precautions.... But the orders do not permit soul-sustaining group services of faith organizations, even if the groups adhere to all the public health guidelines required of essential services and even when they meet outdoors.

The court added:

 As individuals, we have some sympathy for Governor DeWine’s approach—to allow places of worship in Ohio to hold services but then to admonish them all (we assume) that it’s “not Christian” to hold in-person services during a pandemic.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

Court Says Drive-In Church Services Are Reasonable Compromise For COVID-19 Limits

In First Pentecostal Church of Holly Springs v. City of Holly Springs Mississippi, (ND MS, April 24, 2020), a Mississippi federal district court created guidelines on the extent to which states or localities can limit church services in efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The suit was brought by a church whose indoor Easter service was dispersed by police. The court had previously had before it a widely publicized case from Greenville, MS in which a city sought to ban even drive-in church services. (See prior posting.) In deciding the Holly Springs case, the court said in part:

For reasons which should be obvious, this court is considerably less sympathetic to claims by a church which sought to hold indoor church services involving at least thirty-five congregants than it is to the claims by the church in the Greenville case, which sought to hold services in which the congregants stayed in their vehicles with the windows closed....

In its brief, the Church insists that its members practice “social distancing” during indoor church services, but this strikes this court as being a rather hollow guarantee, given the inherent difficulties involved in policing meetings behind closed doors and the inherent medical uncertainties with regard to what a safe Covid-19 distance actually is in the context of individuals who may be sitting together in the same room for an hour or more....

In the court’s view, allowing drive-in church services involving congregants sitting in vehicles whose windows are closed represents the practical middle ground upon which concerns about religious freedom and the safety of the community may co-exist....

At the same time, this court wishes to be clear that it does not regard the practice of “drive-in” church services as being risk-free. While it may be imagined that many attendees of such services would be family members who have already been exposed to each other, that will not always be the case. Indeed, it seems quite likely that, as with regular church services, many such attendees will be elderly parishioners who require the assistance of friends or non-resident family members to take them to the service.... [T]he Covid-19 virus disproportionately kills elderly individuals, and it may therefore be assumed that, if the holding of such “drive-in” services becomes a nationwide trend, that a significant (and possibly large) number of deaths will result. This court believes that preachers and parishioners would be well advised to take this into consideration when deciding whether or not to hold or attend such services.

While this court therefore does not regard the public policy considerations in this context as being one-sided, the First Amendment right to Free Exercise of religion is sufficiently important that some reasonable accommodations must be made for it. This court concludes that the allowing of drive-in services, with windows closed or slightly cracked open, represents a reasonable accommodation in this context, and it finds a reasonable likelihood ... that allowing such drive-in services is legally required, under either state or federal law.

Michigan Houses of Worship Exempted From Penalties For Violating COVID-19 Executive Order

On March 17, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued Executive Order 2020-11 (COVID-19) which banned assemblages of more than 50 people in a single indoor shared space, with limited exceptions. None of the exceptions related to houses of worship.  However is an FAQs posting later in the week, the state said that while places of worship are covered, they are exempt from the penalty provisions that make willful violations of the ban a misdemeanor.  Detroit Free Press reports on the developments.

Obscene Gesture Directed At Pastor Cannot Support Disorderly Conduct Conviction

In Freeman v. State, (GA Sup. Ct., Oct. 2, 2017), the Georgia Supreme Court held that a congregant could not constitutionally be convicted of disorderly conduct for standing up in the back of the church, raising his middle finger in the air and staring angrily at the pastor.  Even though the pastor testified that he felt afraid for his safety at the time, the state Supreme Court held that defendant's raised middle finger constituted constitutionally protected expression.  It said in part:

Because there was no showing here that Freeman’s act of silently raising his middle finger from the back of the church during the church service constituted “fighting words” or a “true threat” that would amount to a tumultuous act, his conviction for disorderly conduct under OCGA § 16-11-39 (a) (1) cannot stand.

Atlanta Journal Constitution reported on the decision.  [Thanks to TaxProf blog via Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]