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.]
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Saturday, June 13, 2020
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:
Labels:
Church services,
COVID-19,
Nevada