Suit Challenges Prof's Radical Interpretation of Islam

This week, a Muslim student at Scottsdale, Arizona Community College filed a lawsuit against the college and a World Politics professor claiming that the faculty member's course contains a module on Islamic terrorism that is based on one-sided, biased perspectives of Islam. The complaint in Sabra v. Maricopa County Community College District, (D AZ, filed 6/2/2020) (full text of complaint and exhibits are at the end of this CAIR press release) alleges that the professor violates the Establishment Clause by teaching that Islam mandates terrorism without telling students that only some extremists believe this. It also claims that the professor violated the free exercise clause by requiring the student to agree to the professor's radical interpretation of Islam in answering a quiz. A law firm was commissioned to conduct an outside review of the College's response to complaints about the professor's actions. The full text of that report is at the end of this article from Fronteras.

Family of 12 Challenges Virginia Restrictions On Worship Services Of Over Ten Persons

Suit was filed last week in a Virginia federal district court by a Catholic family of 12 challenging the provisions in Virginia Governor Ralph Northam's COVID-19 order that bars worship services with more than ten people. (The state is loosening these requirements in its reopening plan.) The complaint (full text) in Diaz-Bonilla v. Northam, (ED VA, filed 5/22/2020), alleges in part:

As a result of the Orders, the Diaz-Bonilla family is able to take their entire family of 12 to: restaurants to order food; any number of retail stores (such as Walmart and Target) that sell food or pharmaceuticals among a vast array of other items; electronics retailers; home improvement stores; lawn and equipment retailers, gas stations or convenience stores; pet stores;office supply stores; laundromats and dry cleaners; or even beer, wine, and liquor stores, if those businesses, deemed essential by the Governor’s order, adhere to certain social distancing requirements.

...However, under the Orders, the Diaz-Bonilla family cannot go to church or even invite a priest or fellow parishioner to their own home for religious purposes, no matter how strictly the family engages in social distancing and sanitization practices.

LifeSite News reports on the lawsuit.

Settlement In Suit Against Georgia City By Anti-Gay Preacher

In Georgia, the Athens-Clarke County Commission has agreed to pay $25,000 in settlement of a lawsuit brought by an anti-LGBT street preacher who was escorted out of the 2019 Athens Pride Festival by police officers. City Dope reported  yesterday on the settlement.  Preacher Adam Bishop was evicted from the festival when he shouted anti-gay rhetoric through a megaphone. The settlement of  Bishop's free exercise and free speech claims also includes a commitment to train police officers on how to treat expressive activity.

Local Wisconsin COVID-19 Orders Challenged On 1st Amendment Grounds

A lawsuit was filed this week in a Wisconsin federal district court against ten local public health officers and a number of other local and state officials seeking to prevent enforcement of local COVID-19 Emergency Orders after the Wisconsin Supreme Court invalidated a statewide emergency order because it exceeded legislative authority and was improperly adopted. (See prior posting.) This week's lawsuit was brought by seventeen plaintiffs, one of whom is a pastor.  The complaint (full text) in Yang v. Powers, (ED WI, filed 5/20/2020) alleges in part that the local orders violate plaintiffs' free exercise rights and the Establishment Clause, as well as their freedom of assembly and equal protection rights. Urban Milwaukee reports on the lawsuit.

Churches Fail In Challenge To Illinois COVID-19 Limits

In Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, (ND IL, May 13, 2020), an Illinois federal district court refused to grant a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to two churches challenging the governor's COVID-19 limitation on worship services. The governor's order requires social distancing and limits worship services to ten people.  The court said in part:

[B]ecause Jacobson [v. Massachusetts] is implicated by the current health crisis, and because the Order advances the State’s interest in protecting its citizens from the pandemic, the court concludes that plaintiffs have a less than negligible chance of success on their constitutional claims.  Moreover, even if Jacobson’s emergency crisis standard does not apply, plaintiffs have failed to show any likelihood of success under traditional First Amendment analysis. ...

[P]laintiffs have provided no evidence that the Order targets religion. They point to the Order’s exemptions for essential businesses that may host more than ten people and argue “if large gatherings at liquor stores, warehouse supercenters, and cannabis stores are not prohibited – and distancing and hygiene practices are only required to the greatest extent possible – even though endangering citizens (or not) to an equal degree, then it is obvious religious gatherings have been targeted for discriminatory treatment.” The court disagrees.

Gatherings at places of worship pose higher risks of infection than gatherings at businesses.

WLS TV reports on the decision.

Hair Salon Raises Free Exercise Claims To Wisconsin COVID-19 Order As State Supreme Court Invalidates It On Other Grounds

As reported by WBAY, a suit was filed Tuesday in a Wisconsin federal district court challenging the state's "Safer at Home" order on free exercise and free speech grounds.  Plaintiff Jessica Netzel operates a faith-based hair salon.  According to the news report:

The lawsuit states Kingdom Kuts "as the name implies, is a ministry of Plaintiff Ms. Netzel. Scriptural references are placed about the business. Ms. Netzel sincerely believes that she is to share her faith with others through her work at Kingdom Kuts."

The suit also says that the order prevents plaintiff from participating in in-person worship services.

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the complaint in Kindom Kuts v. Netzel, (ED WI, filed 5/12/2020). [Thanks to Marty Lederman via Religionlaw.]

Yesterday in Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm,( WI Sup. Ct., May 13, 2020), the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision held that the state's Safer at Home order is unenforceable because it exceeds statutory authority and was not adopted in accordance with required rulemaking procedures.

Free Exercise Challenge To St. Louis COVID-19 Order Dismissed On Standing Grounds

In Hawse v. Page, (ED MO, May 11, 2020), a Missouri federal district court held that plaintiffs lack standing to bring a free exercise challenge to the St. Louis County's COVID-19 order limiting religious gatherings to ten persons. The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiffs state that they are bringing a "facial challenge" to the constitutionality of the Order.... Plaintiffs allege that they are Christians and that Sunday church services are important to their worship.....Plaintiffs allege that their churches are large enough to allow social distancing and have hand sanitizer and other hygiene products to allow for safe gatherings.... Plaintiffs, however, do not identify their religious denominations, organizations, or specific places of worship in the Complaint. Plaintiffs do not allege when their respective churches closed or what caused them to close. Plaintiffs do not allege that their large church gatherings were suspended because they were unlawful under the Order, rather than in response to the general COVID-19 public health crisis....  Thus, based upon the Complaint, the Court is unable to discern the specific impetus for closure of Plaintiffs' churches and, likewise, what would enable their churches to reopen. 

The court however refused to dismiss plaintiffs' due process challenge at this time, asking for further briefing on the issue.

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.

Church Sues Maine Governor Over COVID-19 Restrictions

A lawsuit was filed on Tuesday in a Maine federal district court challenging Maine Governor Janet Mills' COVID-19 Order that restricts in-person religious services.  The complaint (full text) in Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, (D ME, filed 5/5/2020), alleges in part:

Calvary Chapel seeks a TRO restraining enforcement against Calvary Chapel of the various COVID-19 orders issued by Governor Mills and other State officials purporting to prohibit Calvary Chapel, on pain of criminal sanctions, from gathering in person at Calvary Chapel for worship services, regardless of the number of individuals present or whether Calvary Chapel meets or exceeds the social distancing and hygiene guidelines pursuant to which the State disparately and discriminatorily allows so-called “essential” commercial and non-religious entities (e.g., liquor stores, marijuana dispensaries, warehouse clubs, and ‘big box’ stores) to accommodate large crowds and masses of persons without scrutiny or numerical limit.

Bangor Daily News reports on the lawsuit.

Kentucky Governor Sued By Church and State AG Over COVID-19 Restrictions On Services

A church filed suit yesterday in a Kentucky federal district court challenging Kentucky Governor Andrew Beshear's COVID-19 Orders which bans in-person religious services but allows businesses categorized as "life-sustaining" to remain open with proper social distancing. The complaint (full text) in Tabernacle Baptist Church, Inc. of Nicholasville, Kentucky v. Beshear, (ED KY, filed 5/6/2020) alleges in part:

The exception in Governor Beshear’s order for “life-sustaining” businesses allows shopping malls, grocery stores, hardware stores, law firms, laundromats, liquor stores, and gun shops to continue to operate without fear of state police taking adverse action against participants in such endeavors, so long as they follow social-distancing and other health-related precautions. Businesses allowed to operate (like retail stores, for instance) have no numerical limitations or other restrictions that would cap the number of people who can gather together indoors. Defendants have thus deemed it safe to walk down an aisle in a grocery store, but not an aisle between pews, and to interact with a delivery woman, but not with a minister.

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron announced that he has filed a complaint (full text of complaint) seeking to intervene as a plaintiff opposing the Governor's Orders.  In his announcement, the Attorney General said in part:

The Governor continued his arbitrary and unlawful targeting of faith-based groups when he announced last week that some businesses, including dog groomers, horse races, manufacturers, and car dealerships, can reopen as early as May 11, nine days before houses of worship can reopen.  The law requires religious services to be treated no differently than secular activity, as long as those participating follow appropriate Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) recommendations.

Thus a Republican state attorney general is pitted against a Democratic governor in federal court. WKYT News reports on the lawsuit.

Churches Sue Michigan Governor Over COVID-19 Orders Despite Their Exemption From Penalties

A group of churches and clergy yesterday filed suit in a Michigan federal district court challenging on a wide variety of state and federal constitutional grounds the stay-at-home orders of Michigan's Governor Gretchen Whitmer. These orders do not exempt churches, but do provide that they are not subject to any penalty for violating the restrictions.  The complaint (full text) in Word of Faith Christian Center Church v. Whitmer, (WD MI, filed 5/6/2020) alleges in part:

7.  EO   2020-70   continues   to   prohibit   gatherings   of   two   or   more individuals, including at churches, thereby denying them the ability to hold worship services and otherwise carry out their ministry functions until May 28, 2020.

8.  While EO 2020-70 states that “neither a place of religious worship nor its owner is subject to penalty under section 20 of this order for allowing religious worship at such place,” nothing in this provision applies to individuals attending a place or worship as clergy or congregants and does not apply to Plaintiffs.

9. A  promise  to  not  subject  a  geographic  location or  its  “owner”  to  the  criminal penalty under  EO  2020-70 merely  adorns  the  constitution  with  a  fig  leaf  and does not protect individuals or change the clear language of the order prohibiting any   religious services   or   other   ministry functions   at   a   church   or   religious  organization.

M Live reports on the lawsuit.

Church's Challenge To California Stay-At-Home Orders Is Rejected

In Cross Culture Christian Center v. Newsom, (ED CA, May 5, 2020), a California federal district court refused to enter a temporary restraining order against enforcement of state and county COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. The orders were challenged by a church wishing to hold in-person services. Rejecting plaintiff's free exercise claim, the court held that the orders are neutral laws of general applicability subject only to rational basis review.

DOJ Files Statement of Interest Supporting Church's Challenge To Virginia's COVID-19 Restrictions

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed a Statement of Interest supporting plaintiff in Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam.  The suit seeks to enjoin the state of Virginia from enforcing its COVID-19 Order limit on church services. The order limits religious gatherings to ten people. (See prior posting.)  By filing its Statement of Interest before the state of Virginia was required to file its answer to the complaint, DOJ was able to avoid taking a position on several important questions. DOJ's Statement of Interest (full text) contends in part:

This case ... involves important questions of how to balance the deference owed to public officials in addressing a pandemic threatening the health and safety of the public with fundamental constitutional rights. For purposes of this filing, the United States does not take a position on the ultimate question of whether the Commonwealth may have a legally sufficient justification for treating Plaintiff differently from non-retail businesses or other permitted assemblies that may be comparable. The Commonwealth has not yet responded to Plaintiff’s allegations that it permits non-retail businesses, such as law or accounting offices, to gather in numbers greater than ten so long as they use social distancing. Likewise, the Commonwealth has not yet responded to Plaintiff’s allegations that various comparable secular gatherings are permitted. Based on the materials before the Court, Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim under the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution that the Commonwealth’s executive orders have prohibited religious gatherings at places of worship, even with social distancing and personal hygiene protocols, while allowing comparable secular gatherings to proceed with social distancing. It thus becomes the Commonwealth’s burden to demonstrate that it has compelling reasons to treat Plaintiff differently than similar non-religious businesses, and that it has pursued its objectives through the least restrictive means. Because the Commonwealth has not yet filed any response, it has not satisfied its burden.

New York Post reports on DOJ's filing.  On Sunday, Virginia's Governor Northram filed a Notice of Intent To File A Response, asking the court to wait for that before deciding the case. On Friday, the court had issued a 33-page opinion denying a Temporary Restraining Order. Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam, (ED VA, May 1, 2020).
[UPDATED]

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.

Attorney General Warns Against COVID-19 Orders That Violate Civil Rights

Attorney General William Barr yesterday issued a Memorandum to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and to all U.S. Attorneys, titled Balancing Public Safety With the Preservation of Civil Rights. The memo calls for U.S. Attorneys to be on the lookout for state and local COVID-19 orders that infringe constitutional rights and civil liberties. The memo reads in part:

... [E]ven in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers. The legal restrictions on state and local authority are not limited to discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers. For example, the Constitution also forbids, in certain circumstances, discrimination against disfavored speech and undue interference with the national economy. If a state or local ordinance crosses the line from an appropriate exercise of authority to stop the spread of COVID19 into an overbearing infringement of constitutional and statutory protections, the Department of Justice may have an obligation to address that overreach in federal court.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the Memorandum.

Church Sues Virginia Governor Over 10-Person Gathering Limit

Suit was filed last week in a Virginia federal district court seeking to enjoin state officials from enforcing COVID-19 related limits on gatherings of more than ten people against Lighthouse Fellowship Church. The 50-page complaint (full text) in Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam, (ED VA, filed 4/24/2020), asks in part:

That the Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order restraining ... Governor Northam [and] all Commonwealth officers ... from enforcing ... the GATHERING ORDERS ... to the extent any such order prohibits religious worship services at Lighthouse, or in-person church services at Lighthouse if Lighthouse meets the social distancing, enhanced sanitization, and personal hygiene guidelines pursuant to which the Commonwealth allows so-called “essential” commercial and non-religious entities (e.g., beer, wine, and liquor stores, warehouse clubs, ‘big box” and ‘supercenter’ stores) to accommodate gatherings of persons without numerical limit.... Lighthouse merely seeks a TRO preventing Lighthouse,its pastor, and its members from being subject to criminal sanctions for having more than 10 people at its worship service on Sunday....

Eastern Shore Post reports on the lawsuit.

Settlement Reached With Kansas Churches Challenging COVID-19 Limits On Services

After two Baptist churches in Kansas obtained a temporary restraining order  against enforcement of a provision in Kansas Governor Laura Kelly's COVID-19 executive orders that ban religious assemblies of more than ten congregants (see prior posting), the governor has reached a settlement with the churches. Hutchinson News reports:

The proposed resolution to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court would allow congregations in Junction City and Dodge City to conduct in-person services if attendees complied with safety protocols. It also created a window for the governor to revise her mass-gathering order so it would no longer apply to religious meetings.

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.