In
First Pentecostal Church of Holly Springs v. City of Holly Springs, Mississippi, (ND MS, May 14, 2020), a Mississippi federal district court refused to rule immediately on an attempt by a Holly Springs church to hold indoor church services. Both the state and the city have issued COVID-19 orders that are similar, but the church views the state as being more friendly to religious exercise. The court, in an opinion critical of the church's continued litigation, said in part:
This court has found the City to be quite accommodating of the free exercise of religion in this case, including by quickly amending its ordinance to expressly grant plaintiff the right to conduct the drive-in services which it previously requested. Nevertheless, plaintiff appears to regard the Governor, but not the City, as a friend of the exercise of religion, and, that being the case, this court can discern little point in the City choosing to increase its legal exposure by adopting its own executive orders relating to church services, when they are so similar to the Governor’s. The City’s choice of whether or not to adopt the Governor’s orders will be moot if it is determined that the Governor’s orders pre-empt the City’s, but this court raises this as one potential step to bridge the gap of mistrust which clearly exists between the parties in this case.....
Plaintiffs’ briefing on this issue heightens this court’s impression that this entire lawsuit is nothing more than a deeply misguided attempt on their part to gain permission to endanger their own lives and those of their fellow community members. While this court does not rule out the possibility that indoor church services could be held at acceptable risk by a responsible church if sufficient precautions were taken, it has grave concerns whether the plaintiff in this case is sufficiently aware of the gravity of these matters to enable it to do so....
This court observes that plaintiff has made a habit in this litigation of taking the time to carefully prepare briefs (its brief in support of its current motion is 26 pages long) and then demanding an immediate ruling from this court, with opposing counsel left to make hurried arguments in a telephonic hearing. This is a fundamentally unfair process, and this court will no longer tolerate it.
