(Id. ) (Id. The dissenting opinions argued that worship services were actually treated just as favorably as secular activities with comparable COVID-19 risks and no relief was necessary. S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom - Casetext (Dr. Rutherford Decl. 1-5.) Therefore, Plaintiffs do not meet their burden on this point. The Order places temporary numerical restrictions on public gatherings to address this extraordinary health emergency. (Dr. Watt Decl. He also leads the Division of Infectious Disease and Global Epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics. Stiepel Village Church fly through. Failing this neutrality test, the government policy had to be justified by a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to forward that interest. Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissented and would not have granted any relief. (Id. The State could "insist that the congregants adhere to social-distancing and other health requirements and leave it at thatjust as the Governor has done for comparable secular activities." Id. Although gatherings increase the risk of transmission of the virus, this risk "is much higher when the gathering takes place indoors rather than outdoors." 14, ECF No. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the court was denied on May 29, 2020. Then, on July 13, 2020, due to the "significant increase in the spread of COVID-19," the State issued an order re-imposing many previously relaxed restrictions on indoor activities. Ibid. S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom , 959 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. Ex. 70.) California paints a different picture of the current circumstances. Issues: (1) Whether California Governor Gavin Newsoms lockdown orders and The State again appeared to favor protect[ing] lucrative industries while denying similar largesse to its faithful [p. 5]. 58; County's Joinder, ECF No. (Response due December 30, 2020). Dr. James Watt is the Chief of the Division of Communicable Disease Control of the Center for Infectious Diseases at the California Department of Public Health ("CDPH"). (Id. ) 7.) Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020) That is especially true where, as here, a party seeks emergency relief in an interlocutory posture, while local officials are actively shaping their response to changing facts on the ground. (Dr. Watt Decl. "The virus can cause severe disease and death in individuals of any age. (See Renewed Mot. 1-13.) Its sanctuary seats 600. SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, etal. 61-1.) He observed that a ban on singing might have been understandable given the States concern over its contribution to transmission and its ban across other types of indoor gatherings. 2612, 186 L.Ed.2d 651 (2013) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting)).) 2012, 2025, 198 L.Ed.2d 551 (2017) ; see also, e.g., Good News Club v. Milford Central School , 533 U.S. 98, 121 S.Ct. 53-4.) Justice Gorsuch did not dispute that these factors increased the risk of transmitting COVID-19 or that there was a compelling interest to reduce such risk. 45.) League, Inc. v. Lamont. discussing the need for deferential judicial review of COVID-19 protection measures, S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. See id. (Distributed). Sept. 2, 2020), and the Ninth Circuit's subsequent opinion, No. Judge Collins dissented. The Court concluded Plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on the merits of their claims for several reasons. But absent a compelling justification (which the State has not offered), the State may not take a looser approach with, say, supermarkets, restaurants, factories, and offices while imposing stricter requirements on places of worship. Id. In that case, the District of Colombia contended it "has a compelling interest in capping the number of attendees at the Church's outdoor services. " Howe, Amy. Justice THOMAS, Justice ALITO, Justice GORSUCH, and Justice KAVANAUGH would grant the application. 894.). (Id. Marshall v. United States , 414 U.S. 417, 427, 94 S.Ct. 3.) "Most scientists believe that group singing, particularly when engaged in while in close proximity to others in an enclosed space, carries a high risk of spreading the COVID-19 virus through the emission of infected droplets (which typically travel < 6 feet) and aerosols." (Dr. Watt Decl. 2020) This appeal challenges the district court's denial of appellants' motion for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue in appellants' challenge to the application of California and San Diego's stay-at . Thus, the State had regulated religious and nonreligious conduct that carried a comparable COVID-19 risk. The Court takes account of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment in circumstances of a pandemic or emergency, diverging from previous decisions in the COVID-19 ambit along with only one other case. 12.) 53-2.) The Governor of California's Executive Order aims to limit the spread of COVID19, a novel severe acute respiratory illness that has killed thousands of people in California and more than 100,000 nationwide. The Governor of California's Executive Order aims to limit the spread of COVID-19, a novel severe acute respiratory illness that has killed thousands of people in California and more than 100,000 nationwide. 2d 908, 912 (C.D. Ninth Circuit. not accepted for filing. The medical expertise also shed light on why other indoor sites, e.g., retail stores, were treated less severely: people were in less close proximity for shorter periods of time while shopping. (See Detached Opinion). "The characteristics of such events that cause the increased risk of transmission include: being indoors, bringing together a large group of people, having close proximity between individuals, gathering for an extended duration, and having substantial singing and vocalizing that generally takes place at the events." 51; see also Dr. Rutherford Decl. ), Four-Tier System. (State's Opp'n 9:2123.) digest from follow.it by (Id. The State, of course, has a compelling interest in protecting all of its residents from a communicable diseaseincluding those residents with conditions like obesity and diabetes that may ultimately be "comorbidities" along with COVID-19. v. Gavin NEWSOM, Governor of California, et al. But at the same time, the Golden State prevented houses of worship from opening their doors to even a single worshipperno matter how large the worship space or their compliance with social distancing and masking requirements. Further, as described above, the distinction between indoor and outdoor gatherings is based on the State's understanding of the increased risk of transmission of the novel coronavirus indoors. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. 5-3).) California has ample options that would allow it to combat the spread of COVID19 without discriminating against religion. 57.) 20, ECF No. These criteria include the ability "to physically distance between individuals from different households," "to limit the number of people per square foot," "to limit duration of exposure," "to optimize ventilation (e.g. Live Stream South Bay Pentecostal Church And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods. Accordingly, the Court rejects Plaintiffs claim that the State's restrictions are unconstitutional because the COVID-19 public health emergency has ended. (See SAC Ex. (Detached Opinion). Ryan Colby 14.) 30.) at 94047. 57-1.) 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). (SAC Ex. 445, 178 L.Ed.2d 346 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). 1:2425, ECF No. Ex. Further, the Court preemptively addressed the capacity restrictions that would come into effect where indoor services were permitted a 25% capacity limitation. 53). However, it was erroneous to argue that the factors were always present in religious activities or always absent from the secular activities allowed. The "comorbidities" listed in the CDC's data include not only common health conditions like obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, but also conditions that COVID-19 itself can cause before deathlike "pneumonia" and "respiratory failure." And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister?" Applicants seek to enjoin enforcement of the Order. 11.) Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion that would have granted temporary injunctive relief. The Court further expands upon its analysis below while addressing Plaintiffs claims that (i) COVID-19 no longer presents a public health emergency, (ii) the State's restrictions discriminate against places of worship, and (iii) the State's restrictions have been discriminatorily enforced. Hr'g Tr. 14. Moreover, the restrictions did not amount to a ban on worship because, given Californias mild climate [p. 2], services and other gatherings had taken place outdoors. 43; Dr. Rutherford Decl. Hence, the Court assigns some weight to Dr. Delgado's opinions about COVID-19, but the Court assigns no weight to the conclusions of his comparative risk assessment. On May 11, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint raising claims under the First Amendment's Free Exercise, Establishment, Free Speech, and Assembly Clauses; the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; and rights enumerated in Article 1, sections 1 through 4, of the California Constitution. For this same reason, the Court finds distinguishable the district court's discussion of protests in Capital Hill Baptist Church v. Muriel Bowser , No. (See Renewed Mot. Chief Justice Roberts wrote an opinion concurring in the denial of the application. Letter of April 15, 2021 from petitioner South Bay United Pentecostal Church filed. The Court is unconvinced. At bottom, Plaintiffs renewed motion asks the Court to second guess decisions made by California officials concerning whether COVID-19 continues to present a health emergency and whether large indoor gatherings with singing pose a risk to public health. There is also "scientific consensus that vocalization, even normal speech, produces aerosols, and that louder and more forceful expression such as singing and chanting produces more aerosols." (Grabarsky Decl. ( Id. ) at 1614. 10.) When Harvest Rock went back before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief explaining why the Supreme Courts decision in Diocese of Brooklyn should control the outcome in this case. The Court asked Legacy Church about Chief Justice Roberts, Ex. Overall, the State had to do more to tailor the requirements of public health to the rights of the people [p. 6]. Less restrictive alternatives safety measures that were deemed routine across the U.S. had been deemed insufficient by the State while deemed sufficient for many secular activities and businesses. On January 29, 2020, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of South Bay and Harvest Rock at the Supreme Court. The notion that it is indisputably clear that the Governments limitations are unconstitutional seems quite improbable. 2019) ("Because of the extraordinary nature of injunctive relief a district court may consider evidence outside the normal rules of evidence, including: hearsay, exhibits, declarations, and pleadings. They extrapolate this 94% statistic to determine a much smaller infection-fatality rate for those who "are healthy and have no other comorbidities." South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom See U.S. at , 140 S. Ct. at 1614 (Roberts, C.J.). Since March 4, 2020, houses of worship in California have been subject to a series of draconian restrictions that, with a few brief respites over the summer, have banned all indoor worship for months at a time. View all photos (36) Global Perspective demonstrates how the courts decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions. 40, 51.) 25:1925, ECF No. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993) ; Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist. DF, ECF No. Supplemental brief of applicants South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. (Trissell Decl. Recognizing this unequal treatment, South Bay United Pentecostal Church and Harvest Rock Church sued California, asking that religious worship be treated at least as well as these secular activities. . South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (R oberts, C. J., concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief ) (slip op., at 2). (Mot. at *8 (emphasis added). Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summarily. In sum, Californias 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services indisputably discriminates against religion, and such discrimination violates the First Amendment. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief. 5053.) U.S. at , 140 S.Ct. South Bay United Pentecostal Church has applied for temporary injunctive relief from Californias 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services. (Jul. All rights reserved. And because Plaintiffs do not show "the broad limits" of the State and County's discretion in this context are being exceeded, second guessing their decisions is not appropriate. In sum, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that new developments mean they are likely to succeed on their free exercise claims under the federal and state constitutions. Our Constitution principally entrusts "[t]he safety and the health of the people" to the politically accountable officials of the States "to guard and protect." That characterization is problematic. framework, placing strict limitations, including She outlined the demand for neutrality in First Amendment actions impacting religion. Court declines to lift restrictions on crowds at church services (UPDATED), Church challenges COVID-19 stay-at-home order (Updated). Millhiser, Ian. 702 (providing expert testimony must be "based on sufficient facts or data" and be "the product of reliable principles and methods"). Application (20A136) referred to the Court. (Renewed Mot. 3846, ECF No. The operative restrictions do not limit attendance for outdoor religious services or outdoor protests. Ex. He is also an Associate at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a Clinical Professor at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, where he teaches graduate students in public health and medical students about communicable disease control. SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH v. NEWSOM | Supreme Court | US Law 2093, 150 L.Ed.2d 151 (2001) ; Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. Hr'g Tr. See, e.g. On February 5, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that California could not enforce its discriminatory indoor worship ban against South Bay Pentecostal Church, Harvest Rock Church, and other houses of worship. This determination does not mean Plaintiffs could not prevail at a trial on the merits. ), Typically, the Church holds "between three and five services each Sunday." (Id. On February 5, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that enjoined California's total ban on indoor worship. 47106.). The respondents were enjoined from enforcing the Tier 1 ban on indoor worship services against the applicants but were not enjoined from enforcing the ban on singing and chanting during indoor services. S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom - Casetext Indoor restaurants and movie theaters in the County are subject to the same attendance restrictions as worship services, but bars, wineries, cardrooms, concerts, sporting events, family entertainment centers, and theatrical performances remain either closed entirely or restricted to outdoor activities only. The Court reasoned: "The right to practice religion freely does not include the liberty to expose the community to communicable disease or to ill health or death." 53-7 (opining that the increasing cases in the United States "are not as large of a concern as they were in the beginning of the pandemic" because the "infection case fatality rate is falling fast" and "COVID-19 is not the monster we initially thought it was"), and Dr. Bhattacharya Decl. Non-critical office spaces are designated "remote," and gyms are limited to 10% capacity indoors. Mixed Outcome. 3140 (dissecting Dr. Delgado's comparative risk model).) 21; Dr. Rutherford Decl. Indeed, the Court notes that both parties, including their proposed experts, routinely rely on various reported statistics for COVID-19. 23. The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries. 358, 49 L.Ed. The applicants were subject to these restrictions and argued that the bans violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Rosen , 343 F. Supp. S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. at 1614 ("Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an unelected federal judiciary, which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people." 35, 4142.) The Court's order was a single sentence. Ex. Third, Plaintiffs contrary evidence is not compelling. And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods. (See, e.g. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom - SCOTUSblog See Stormans , 794 F.3d at 108384 (concluding there was no evidence of selective enforcement by the state commission against religiously motivated violations). It is one thing for an expert to explain why epidemiologists believe there is a higher risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in large gatherings, indoor spaces, and where groups are singing indoors, it is quite another for someone to purport to calculatewithout datathat the risk of contracting COVID-19 at a house of worship is "12.5% the risk at the grocery store" or "1% the risk at public protests." 2019). The following state regulations pages link to this page. 27.). 3, ECF No. The Ninth Circuit also determined the remaining injunction factors "do not counsel in favor of injunctive relief." 57-7, 69.) S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 985 F.3d 1128 | Casetext Search + Citator Opinion Summaries Case details Case Details Full title: SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, a California nonprofit corporation Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Date published: Jan 22, 2021 Citations Copy Citation Attorney General, State of California Office of the Attorney General, San Diego, CA, Lisa J. Plank, California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Todd Grabarsky, California Attorney General's Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants Gavin Newsom, Xavier Becerra, Sonia Angell. 72; accord Dr. Rutherford Decl. As a result, California changed its unconstitutional worship restrictions the very next day. They filed a supplemental brief to challenge the State's May 25 guidelines. 14.) While the motion was being briefed, circumstances again changed. The Court considers the public records and government documents attached to the Second Amended Complaint because their authenticity is not questioned. 50 ("There is a lower risk of COVID-19 transmission when a group gathering takes place outdoors; there is a much decreased likelihood of aerosolized transmission of the virus outdoors because aerosolized particles will dissipate into the atmosphere.").) (Jordan Decl. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. Overall, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not shown they are likely to succeed on their claim that the challenged restrictions are unconstitutional in light of discriminatory enforcement. 3. The Court also found the reopening restrictions were "rationally based on protecting safety and stopping" the spread of the virus. Ex. 1. Counting votes in the South Bay decision - SCOTUSblog Referenced by the Court as a clear precedent that COVID-19 rules related to freedom of religion, such as Californias, failed strict scrutiny and violated the Constitution. See S. Bay Church , U.S. at , 140 S. Ct. at 1614 (Roberts, C.J.). (ECF No. Kavanaugh wrote that Californias latest guidelines discriminate against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses., He added that California has ample options that would allow it to combat the spread of COVID-19 without discriminating against religion.. Plaintiffs argue that "despite enforcing its restrictions against houses of worship, California has steadfastly refused to enforce its restrictions against political protests," making "places of worship" ultimately "pay for the sins of protestors a palpable violation of Plaintiffs rights." See Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority , 469 U.S. 528, 545, 105 S.Ct. https://www.becketlaw.org/case/harvest-rock-church-v-newsom/. The State later released a "Resilience Roadmap" that categorized workplaces into four stages. 5771 (discussing risks of indoor religious worship and cultural events, grocery shopping, restaurant dining, and factories and whether those environments involve the "heightened risk created by group singing"). filed. On March 19, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-33-20, which states that to protect the public's health, "all individuals living in the State of California" are "to stay at home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors." Sign up to receive a daily email This website may use cookies to improve your experience. "In a Pentecostal Church worship service, everyone is instructed and expected to sing praise to God, just as everyone is instructed and expected to pray to God. (ECF No. 2217 ); see supra Part II.E. (SAC Ex. On May 22, 2020, the Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiffs request. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the total ban on indoor worship services did not reflect a sound determination by the State of restrictions narrowly tailored. v. GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. 1-3.) South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, No. 20-55533 (9th Cir Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing. (State's Opp'n 9:1821, ECF No. 1322 ). 24. ; see also San Francisco , 944 F.3d at 789 (providing the court should not issue a preliminary injunction "unless the movant, by a clear showing , carries the burden of persuasion"). Supreme Court: Amy Coney Barrett's first opinion on churches - Vox v. California , 547 F.3d 962, 969 n.4 (9th Cir. 58-2.) Also, the larger the gathering, the higher the number of people who may be secondarily infected by that infected person." 47.) In response to this disparate treatment, South Bay United Pentecostal Church sued Governor Gavin Newsom in May 2020, challenging this total ban on in-person worship. Chief Justice Roberts wrote an opinion concurring in the denial of the application. Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. ABOUT 2, Ex. First, applying Jacobson v. Massachusetts , 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 1865, 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997) ). Plaintiffs tailor their renewed motion to their "Free Exercise Claims under the U.S. and California Constitutions." 57; County's Opp'n, ECF No. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom - Global Freedom of Response to application from respondents Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, et al. It is very likely that the Court will take up this case, South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom or at least one like it from another place of worship that claims it has a right to hold . The Ninth Circuit granted their request. 2.) The COVID-19 pandemic remains an area "fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties." Gavin Newsom's COVID-19 restrictions preventing churches and other religious congregations from . ("SAC") 18, ECF No. Waiver of right of respondents Gavin Newsom, et al. 1646.) Importantly, the Church is willing to abide by the State's rules that apply to comparable secular businesses, including the rules regarding social distancing and hygiene. In applying strict scrutiny, Justice Gorsuch noted that judges were not scientists but available to test the governments assertions and hold governments to the Constitution [p. 2] in times of crisis. Lukumi , 508 U.S. at 531532, 113 S.Ct. The Court previously reasoned that the State "may limit an individual's right to freely exercise his religious beliefs when faced with a serious health crises" like that presented by COVID-19. 2012) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong , 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S.Ct. (Dr. Rutherford Decl. See infra note 7. (Bishop Hodges Decl. The Court disagrees. 2023 Columbia University|Statement on Disability, Columbia University 91 Claremont Ave, Suite 523 New York, NY 10027, Columbia University in the City of New York, Special Collection of the Case Law on Freedom of Expression, https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/02/counting-votes-in-the-south-bay-decision/, https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/barretts-first-scotus-opinion-concurs-in-sopening-california-churches-with-some-restrictions, https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/02/divided-court-allows-indoor-worship-services-to-resume-in-california/, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/us/supreme-court-california-church-coronavirus.html?smid=url-share.