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.]

New Jersey COVID-19 Limits On Indoor Church Services Upheld

In Solid Rock Baptist Church v. Murphy, (D NJ, Aug.  20, 2020), a New Jersey federal district court rejected a church's challenge to the limits on indoor worship services imposed in New Jersey governor's COVID-19 orders,  The court said in part:

Although Plaintiffs have made a compelling case that the Executive Orders were crafted with religious indifference, the Court may not invalidate the executive orders on those grounds alone. In the end, Plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that the restrictions on indoor gatherings were crafted with religious animus, have been applied unequally, or lack a rational relationship to a legitimate government objective....

Plaintiffs are rightfully disillusioned that the State has not prioritized indoor religious activity to the same degree as outdoor social justice protests. The State’s apathy to sincerely held religious beliefs, alone, however, does not establish unequal treatment as it pertains to indoor gatherings. Because the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Executive Orders, as they pertain to large indoor gatherings, are not facially neutral and generally applicable, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success on the merits.

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.

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.

Churches Challenge Minnesota COVID-19 Limits On Worship Services

Three churches and their pastors filed suit this week in a Minnesota federal district court challenging the state's COVID-19 limits on worship services.  The complaint (full text) in Cornerstone Church of Alexandria v. Walz, (D MN, filed 8/13/2020), alleges in part:

The plaintiffs’ religious liberties under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution have been violated by Governor Walz’s Executive Orders 20-74 and 20-81. Although during a pandemic, the ordinary constitutional test of strict scrutiny may not apply to the Governor’s regulation of church activities (although it is still argued here in Count I), the government’s regulations must still be “capable of a reasoned application” as they would be for a non-public forum....

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

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.

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.

Attack On Connecticut COVID-19 Orders Rejected

In Murphy v. Lamont, (D CT, Aug. 3, 2020), a Connecticut federal district court rejected a wide-ranging constitutional attack, including 1st Amendment challenges, on the COVID-19 orders of Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont. The court found that plaintiffs lack standing, saying in part:

... Barnes asserts that he is “impeded from attending church.”... However, because no Executive Order prohibits religious worship, Barnes cannot show that the conduct he wishes to engage is “proscribed by statute.” ... Furthermore, Barnes alleges no facts as to his intention to attend religious services or any specific occurrence where he was prevented from doing so.

Murphy also asserts an injury to his religious liberty, along with his freedom of association. He alleges that, “[b]efore the illegal lock down orders, my family participated in a homeschooling group, in which we met in a church. We have not met since this lock down.”... Like Barnes’ allegations, these allegations are too vague to establish an injury-in-fact.

The court also found that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits, saying in part:

Executive Order 7TT limits attendance of places of worship to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is fewer.... In South Bay United Pentecostal Church, 140 S. Ct. at 1613, the Chief Justice, in his concurrence in the judgment denying a temporary injunction, found that those same restrictions (in California) did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. The court reaches the same conclusion here. The challenged Executive Orders are plainly neutral, and plaintiffs have not proffered any evidence to suggest that the Governor has any animus towards religious organizations. Indeed, more severe restrictions apply to secular gatherings.

Supreme Court, 5-4, Refuses To Enjoin Pending Appeal Nevada Limits On Worship Services

By a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday refused to grant an injunction pending appeal to a church that is challenging Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak's COVID-19 Order limiting worship services to no more than 50 people with social distancing. A Nevada federal district court upheld the Nevada Order. ( See prior posting). The 9th Circuit denied an emergency motion for injunctive relief pending appeal. In Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, (US Supreme Court, July 24, 2020), while the majority did not file an opinion explaining their vote, the four dissenting Justices did. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, finding free speech and free exercise violations, saying in part:

The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine, or to engage in any other game of chance. But the Governor of Nevada apparently has different priorities. Claiming virtually unbounded power to restrict constitutional rights during the COVID–19 pandemic, he has issued a directive that severely limits attendance at religious services. A church, synagogue, or mosque, regardless of its size, may not admit more than 50 persons, but casinos and certain other favored facilities may admit 50% of their maximum occupancy—and in the case of gigantic Las Vegas casinos, this means that thousands of patrons are allowed.

That Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees may not come as a surprise, but this Court’s willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing.

Justice Gorsuch filed a brief dissent, saying in part:

The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.

Justice Kavanaugh also filed a separate dissent, laying out a broad framework for approaching religion cases. He says in part:

The definitional battles over what constitutes favoritism, discrimination, equality, or neutrality can influence, if not decide, the outcomes of religion cases. But the parties to religion cases and the judges deciding those cases often do not share a common vocabulary or common background principles. And that disconnect can muddy the analysis, build resentment, and lead to litigants and judges talking past one another.

In my view, some of the confusion and disagreement can be averted by first identifying and distinguishing four categories of laws: (1) laws that expressly discriminate against religious organizations; (2) laws that expressly favor religious organizations; (3) laws that do not classify on the basis of religion but apply to secular and religious organizations alike; and (4) laws that expressly treat religious organizations equally to some secular organizations but better or worse than other secular organizations. As I will explain, this case involving Nevada’s reopening plan falls into the fourth category.

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.

California's COVID-19 Ban On Worship Singing and Chanting Is Challenged

On Wednesday, a suit was filed in a California federal district court challenging California Governor Gavin Newsom's COVID-19 Order relating to restrictions on reopened church services.  The state's Guidance document requires that places of worship discontinue singing and chanting.  No similar requirement is placed on other reopened activities. The complaint (full text) in Calvary Chapel of Ukiah v. Newsom, (ED CA, filed 7/15/2020), alleges that the selective ban violates plaintiffs' 1st and 14th Amendment rights. It says in part:

The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, impermissibly burdens Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs, compel Plaintiffs to either change those beliefs or to act in contradiction to them, and force Plaintiffs to choose between the teachings and requirements of their sincerely held religious beliefs or the mandates in Defendants’ Worship Ban.

The Hill reports on the lawsuit.

Church's Appeal of Visa For Its Music Director Fails

In Liberty Church of the Assemblies of God v. Pompeo, (D MA, July 1, 2020), a Massachusetts federal district court invoked the doctrine of consular non-reviewability to dismiss a church's appeal of the denial of an R-1 visa to its Director of Music and Media.

[T]he complaint fails to plausibly plead a violation of Liberty Church’s constitutional rights. Although Liberty Church broadly alleges that the act of denying Mr. Rocha a visa infringed its rights under the Establishment Clause by making it “suddenly and unduly unable to establish church services” ..., it has not explained how it has been unable to establish church services in the wake of the denial. There is no indication, for example, that Liberty Church cannot operate without Mr. Rocha.... Indeed, the allegations in the complaint suggest the exact opposite.... To the extent Liberty Church instead means to contend that it needs someone (if not Mr. Rocha himself) to serve as Director of Music and Media, nothing in the complaint would allow the Court to reasonably infer that the denial of Mr. Rocha’s visa application rendered Liberty Church unable to employ a Director of Music and Media.

New York Enjoined From Enforcing Stricter Limits Against Worship Services

In Soos v. Cuomo, (ND NY, June 26, 2020), a New York federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring New York from enforcing COVID-19 orders that impose stricter limits on worship services than on other activities. The suit was brought by two Catholic priests and three Orthodox Jews.  The court said in part:

Assuming, without deciding, that the challenged laws are neutral, plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to their free exercise claim because it appears that the challenged laws are not generally applicable, and that they would fail strict scrutiny....

On its face, the 25% indoor capacity limitation applies only to houses of worship... Indeed, that limitation is the only one of its kind in the tangle of executive orders and the Guidance Document that have been issued in response to the pandemic; in other words, no other secular entity, save for those that remain closed in their entirety until Phase 4 or beyond, are limited to only 25% capacity. The “nonessential businesses,” dubbed “Phase 2 industries” by executive order, that enjoy a 50% capacity limitation are, however, not justifiably different than houses of worship.

The court enjoined the state:

(1) from enforcing any indoor gathering limitations against plaintiffs greater than imposed for Phase 2 industries, provided that plaintiffs follow social distancing requirements as set forth in the applicable executive orders and guidance; and

(2) from enforcing any limitation for outdoor gatherings provided that participants in such gatherings follow social distancing requirements as set forth in the applicable executive orders and guidance.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the decision.

5th Circuit Dismisses Church's Challenge To COVID-19 Order As Moot

In Spell v. Edwards, (5th Cir., June 18, 2020), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed as moot a constitutional challenge to Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards' COVID-19 order that restricted in-person church services to ten congregants. On June 5, the Governor issued a new order allowing churches to operate at 50% of capacity. Judge Ho concurred, but said that a future case might turn out differently.  He said in part:

If protests are exempt from social distancing requirements, then worship must be too....

Such support for the protests reflects a commendable commitment to equality. But public officials cannot devalue people of faith while elevating certain protestors. That would offend the First Amendment—not to mention the principle of equality for which the protests stand.

7th Circuit Upholds Illinois COVID-19 Restrictions On Worship Services

In Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, (7th Cir., June 16, 2020), 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. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs maintain ... that the ten-person cap disfavors religious services compared with, say, grocery shopping (more than ten people at a time may be in a store) or warehouses (where a substantial staff may congregate to prepare and deliver the goods that retail shops sell)....

So what is the right comparison group: grocery shopping, warehouses, and soup kitchens, as plaintiffs contend, or concerts and lectures, as Illinois maintains? Judges of other appellate courts have supported both comparisons....

It would be foolish to pretend that worship services are exactly like any of the possible comparisons, but they seem most like other congregate functions that occur in auditoriums, such as concerts and movies.... Functions that include speaking and singing by the audience increase the chance that persons with COVID-19 may transmit the virus through the droplets that speech or song inevitably produce....

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges NY Worship Restrictions vs. Permitted Floyd Protests

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by two Catholic priests and three Orthodox Jews challenging limits on worship services imposed by  New York state and city COVID-19 orders. The complaint (full text) in Soos v. Cuomo, (ND NY, filed 6/10/2020), alleges in part:

[W]hile defendants jointly impose this arbitrary, pseudo-scientific regime of strict gathering limits for some groups and activities but not others, they are permitting closely packed gatherings of thousands to protest the wrongful death of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer, which have been taking place in New York City and every other major city in New York State day-after-day since Floyd’s death on May 25.

Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Support of an Application for a Preliminary Injunction (full text) contends in part:

Here, the Orders only purport to mandate a general limit on non-essential gatherings across the state. But aside from the voluminous formal exemptions that undermine the Orders’ general applicability ..., Defendants recently granted an individualized exemption to mass gatherings protesting the death of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer.... These protests have involved hundreds or thousands of protestors all across the state, often packed together shoulder-to-shoulder in express derogation of the Orders’ limits on gathering sizes and social distancing.... And yet, while Defendants expressly approve of these gatherings, they have insisted that limits on religious gatherings remain in place.... This is exactly the type of disparate individualized assessment that must pass strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

UPDATE: Here is defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Application for Injunctive Relief.

Court Upholds Nevada COVID-19 Restrictions On Worship Services

In Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, (D NV, June 11, 2020), a Nevada federal district court upheld Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak's COVID-19 Order limiting worship services to no more than 50 people with social distancing.  Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent South Bay decision, the court said in part:

Given that there are some secular activities comparable to in-person church services that are subject to more lenient restrictions, and yet other activities arguably comparable to in-person church services that are subject to more stringent restrictions, the Court cannot find that the Emergency Directive is an implicit or explicit attempt to specifically target places of worship.... Additionally, whether a church is more like a casino or more like a concert or lecture hall for purposes of assessing risk of COVID-19 transmission is precisely the sort of “dynamic and fact-intensive” decision-making “subject to reasonable disagreement,” that the Court should refrain from engaging in.

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

Suit Challenges New Jersey's COVID-19 Limit On Worship Services

Earlier this week, two churches and their pastors filed suit in a New Jersey federal district court challenging New Jersey's COVID-19 orders which limit worship services to ten people.  The complaint (full text) in Solid Rock Baptist Church v. Murphy, (D NJ, filed 6/3/2020) alleges in part:

[L]ocal police officers have visited the churches, installed cameras on church property for surveillance purposes, investigated the parking lot of one church, filed Complaints against the 3 pastors for allowing religious gatherings that exceed the 10-people limit, even though the gathered individuals were separated by six feet and wore masks unless hindered from doing so for health reasons, while occupying the sanctuary, meeting or exceeding the social distancing and personal hygiene recommendations for “Essential Services” still permitted to gather.

... The Defendants’ Orders are not neutral laws of general applicability because they target constitutionally protected activity, significantly burden the Plaintiffs’ right to the freedom of religion and assembly, establish an orthodox form of religious exercise approved by the State of New Jersey, all the while providing broad exemptions for many secular activities that are not constitutionally protected....

[Thanks to Matthew Brown for the lead.]

3rd Circuit, 2-1, Affirms Dismissal of Church's Challenge To Delaware COVID-19 Limits

In Bullock v. Carney, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17374 (3d Cir., May 30, 2020), a majority of a 3-judge panel in the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Delaware federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to a pastor who objected to the Governor's COVID-19 restrictions on worship services. In a one-sentence order, the court affirmed the district court "substantially for the reasons set forth in the Court's May 29, 2020 Memorandum Opinion."  Judge Phipps filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Reverend Bullock does not bring a free exercise claim in isolation, but rather he also challenges a restriction on a communicative element of that freedom. Specifically, he disputes limitations on gathering size, preaching, baptism, and communion. And in any event, because these restrictions govern churches specifically, they do not act as neutral and generally applicable regulations. Accordingly, to be constitutional, the Governor's order must survive strict scrutiny.

A reasonable probability exists that the Governor's order does not meet that most exacting standard of constitutional scrutiny....  Here, the Governor's order furthers a compelling state interest — preventing the spread of the coronavirus. But ... a reasonable probability exists that the Governor will not be able to demonstrate that the challenged restrictions on churches are narrowly tailored to accomplishing that goal.