(Dr. Watt Decl. 61-5).) 59; Reply to State's Opp'n, ECF No. Cynthia Bashant, United States District Judge. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom; Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom. Statement of JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join. Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 18, 2021. (Dr. Watt Decl. What California needs is a compelling justification for distinguishing between (i) religious worship services and (ii) the litany of other secular businesses that are not subject to an occupancy cap. 4752.) The Chief Justice's Unexpected Super Precedent from the Shadow Docket 702 (providing expert testimony must be "based on sufficient facts or data" and be "the product of reliable principles and methods"). What California needs is a compelling justification for distinguishing between (i) religious worship services and (ii) the litany of other secular businesses that are not subject to an occupancy cap. 5.) And although "California undoubtedly has a compelling interest in combating the spread of COVID19 and protecting the health of its citizens," Justice Kavanaugh reasoned California's restrictions discriminate against religion because the State lacks a compelling justification for distinguishing between worship services and the aforementioned secular businesses. Web. Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Plaintiffs highlight that "the CDC updated its coronavirus statistics to reveal that for 94% of coronavirus related deaths, in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional comorbidities." Exs. (Dr. Rutherford Decl. Application (19A1044) referred to the Court. The application is denied with respect to the prohibition on singing and chanting during indoor services. In San Diego County, California's restrictions currently limit Plaintiffs indoor worship services to 25% of building capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer. After Justice Kagan referred Plaintiffs application for injunctive relief to the Supreme Court, the Court denied it. (Grabarsky Decl. On February 5, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that enjoined California's total ban on indoor worship. 07, 2023, Supreme Court nixes Californias ban on indoor worship, Beckets SCOTUS Amicus Brief in Harvest Rock v. Newsom, Beckets Amicus Brief in Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom. Referencing by the dissent to note that a government could not limit religious conduct to protect the governments interests unless it also limited nonreligious conduct that threatened those interests in a similar or greater degree. 445, 178 L.Ed.2d 346 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). , 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. free-exercise-of-religion rights during a pandemic, Hence, injunctive relief is similarly not appropriate on this basis. 28, ECF No. 25. Id. (SAC Ex. 1865, 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997) ). Fulton v. Philadelphia decision at 6. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. (ECF Nos. Because people may be infected but asymptomatic, they may unwittingly infect others. The Ninth Circuit explained: The question, then, is whether the evidence before the Court points to a different outcome than in Harvest Rock . 2.) Consequently, Plaintiffs argue the restrictions regarding indoor worship services and singing are unconstitutional and should be enjoined before trial. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. Sign up to receive a daily email Justice Gorsuch disagreed with the Courts order regarding the singing factor. 42; see also Dr. Rutherford Decl. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). See supra Part II.E. This case arises from the State of California's efforts to limit the spread of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that has upended society. (Jul. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. By a 6-3 majority, 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. (Renewed Mot., ECF No. (Id. 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." 1-5.) 26:925.) See Blueprint for a Safer EconomyCurrent Tier Assignments as of October 13, 2020, https://covid19.ca.gov/safer-economy/; see also Fed. Although Plaintiffs other declarants make statements about the danger of COVID-19 to religious congregants and the broader public as part of the debate referenced above, see supra note 9, they do not provide this type of comparative risk assessment. in opposition filed. (Renewed Mot. 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. " Overall, the Courts armchair epidemiology [p. 6] weakened efforts to tackle the public health emergency and contravened the reasons why the Constitution entrusted peoples safety and health to elected state officials, not federal courts. The State cannot "assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings." Ex. Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor, filed a dissenting opinion. Last, the Court addresses Plaintiffs argument that California's restrictions "have been enforced discriminatorily." See id. 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 . 12-2.) LACV 20-6414 JGB, 2020 WL 5265564 (C.D. In the case of California, the State generally offered four justifications for its regulations: religious exercises involved (1) large groups of people from different households (2) in close physical proximity (3) for extended periods (4) with singing. SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, et al. JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE GORSUCH join, dissenting from denial of application for injunctive relief. 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. On March 19, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20. California argues "these numbers are enormous, far greater than the number of people killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks and those who lost their lives in Hurricane Katrina." Response Requested. By displacing expert-based judgments and policy with judicial edict [p.6], the Court was inject[ing] uncertainty into an area where uncertainty ha[d] human costs [p. 6]. SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, et al. 20, ECF No. The Court further determined that Plaintiffs had "not demonstrated arbitrary exceptions to [the] classification" level that included in-person worship services. at 161314. 32.) They filed a supplemental brief to challenge the State's May 25 guidelines. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. The Court granted their request, reasoning it raised a substantial issue. 51; see also Dr. Rutherford Decl. "A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing , carries the burden of persuasion. " Lopez v. Brewer , 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. The guidelines contain instructions and recommendations for physical distancing during worship services as well as cleaning and disinfection protocols, training for employees and volunteers, and individual screening. Response to application from respondents Wilma J. Wooten, et al. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website. In my view, Californias discrimination against religious worship services contravenes the Constitution. (State's Opp'n 9:1821, ECF No. (Distributed). Id. Moreover, neither Plaintiffs evidence nor their arguments convincingly show that the current restrictions exceed "those broad limits." 5-3).) The U.S. Supreme Court sought to determine if the applicants established their entitlement to injunctive relief, on the basis of whether the restrictions of the disputed zones violated the First Amendments Free Exercise Clause. ), Gatherings. Plaintiffs thus have not shown they are entitled to injunctive relief before a trial on the merits. 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"). 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. Delgado Decl. Letter Re: Notice of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Ruling of South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. 57-4 (opining that "Dr. Bhattacharya's seroprevalence-survey based claims of very low overall and age-specific COVID-19 infection fatality rates, generally and specifically in California, remain matters on which, for good reasons, there is no scientific consensus"). Although gatherings increase the risk of transmission of the virus, this risk "is much higher when the gathering takes place indoors rather than outdoors." (ECF No. A federal district court denied the injunction and the 9th U.S. ET. South Bays case went all the to the Supreme Court in an emergency posture, but initially resulted in a loss for the church with four Justices noting that they would have enjoined Californias restrictions. 716, finally granted a major portion of the injunctive relief that it had refused to offer when the case came to the Court earlier. For months, California permitted Hollywood film studios and large retailers to open their doors, often to hundreds of people mingling in enclosed spaces. The virus can also "live on certain surfaces for a period of time, suggesting that fomite transmission (through touching a surface where the live virus is present) is possible," but this method of transmission "is not believed to be a common method by which individuals can be infected by the virus." In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Lukumi , 508 U.S. at 531532, 113 S.Ct. 27:1011. Stiepel Village Church fly through. 57-2 ; accord Dr. Rutherford Decl. States simply had to treat similar cases alike and could treat dissimilar cases accordingly. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, No. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summarily. Hr'g Tr. Lukumi , 508 U.S. at 546, 113 S.Ct. The Governor of Californias 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. at 94346. In fact, by late November of 2020, California stood alone in its absolute prohibition on indoor religious worship. 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). Suggested duration < 1 hour. Klein v. City of San Clemente , 584 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 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. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience. 25:1925, ECF No. 12-2.) PRIVACY POLICY Servs. 27:56.) Hr'g Tr. (Id. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (providing the court can consider whether a technique is acceptable in the relevant scientific community). See 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"). South Bay Pentecostal Church See U.S. at , 140 S. Ct. at 1614 (Roberts, C.J.). Brief of respondents San Diego County Defendants' in opposition filed. And finally, aside from being unreliable, Dr. Delgado's comparative risk assessment is simply not convincing in light of the evidence before the Court. 2020). (Dr. Rutherford Decl. Under this four-tier system, which is more nuanced than the State's prior restrictions, lower-risk activities and sectors are permitted to resume sooner than higher-risk ones based on a series of "risk criteria." 61; Reply to County's Opp'n, ECF No. A service at the Church also "concludes with fellowship both inside and outside the sanctuary." Further, the Court preemptively addressed the capacity restrictions that would come into effect where indoor services were permitted a 25% capacity limitation. Hr'g Tr. (Dr. Watt Decl. Citing Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), he noted that decisions regarding the safety and health of the people are principally entrusted to politically accountable officials of the states. 27.). But "restrictions inexplicably applied to one group and exempted from another do little to further these goals and do much to burden religious freedom." CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, concurring in the partial grant of application for injunctive relief. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would grant the application. at 1613-14. 29, ECF No. The restrictions also forbid group singing and chanting indoors. Plaintiffs lodge 142 evidentiary objections to the evidence submitted by California and the County. Cal. The State and County filed oppositions to Plaintiffs renewed motion, and Plaintiffs filed a reply to each opposition. 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. As summarized above, San Diego County is in the State's "red" tierTier 2. JUSTICE BARRETT, with whom JUSTICE KAVANAUGH joins, concurring in the partial grant of application for injunctive relief. Supreme Court. 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. However, deference had its limits. v. Gavin NEWSOM, Governor of. 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. (Id. NN, ECF No. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. 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." The application is denied with respect to the percentage capacity limitations, and respondents are not en-joined from imposing a 25% capacity limitation on indoor worship services in Tier 1. (Dr. Delgado Decl. 72; see also Dr. Rutherford Decl. After the Supreme Court's decision, the State and County officials continued to "actively shap[e] their response to changing facts on the ground." (Id. ) Oct. 1, 2020). 1:2122.) (See Dr. Delgado Decl. He also serves as the "Director of Global Strategic Information Group in the Institute for Global Health Sciences at U.C. On May 25, 2020, California issued guidelines that allow places of worship to resume in-person services with limitations. After Justice Kagan referred Plaintiffs' application for injunctive relief to the Supreme Court, the Court denied it. See, e.g. Plaintiffs sought an injunction that would prevent the State and County "from enforcing any prohibition on Plaintiffs engagement in religious services, practices, or activities at which the County of San Diego's Social Distancing and Sanitation Protocol and Safe Reopening Plan is being followed." And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister?" The roadmap placed "religious services" in Stage 3, along with movie theaters, museums, and barsinstead of Stage 2, which included retail stores and dine-in restaurants. (Id. 93103; Dr. Rutherford Decl. 53-8 (estimating the "infection fatality rate is less than 0.2%" for "the non-elderly congregants," whereas the mortality risk for those over seventy who contract the disease is "still small, with 98.7% of infected elderly people surviving the infection"), and Trissell Decl. (Jordan Decl. On August 28, 2020, due to "increased knowledge of disease transmission vulnerabilities and risk factors," the State established a new four-tier system for reopening, which superseded the State's July 13 order. Dr. Delgado provided a similar declaration in support of Plaintiffs initial motion for injunctive relief. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom - SCOTUSblog The plaintiffs appealed, and the Ninth Circuit similarly denied their emergency motion to enjoin "California Governor Gavin Newsom's COVID-19 Executive Orders and related restrictions (Orders) as they apply to in-person worship services." Response to application (20A136) requested by Justice Kagan, due Friday, January 29, by 5 p.m. ABOUT (March 25, 2021). The Order places temporary numerical restrictions on public gatherings to address this extraordinary health emergency. Therefore, both California and the County of San Diego urge the Court to again refuse Plaintiffs request for extraordinary relief. (Id. at 940. 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." 26:925.) S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. 5223.) 2.) 15.) Newsom." In Progress In response, Plaintiffs claim the County "misses the point" because the County "treats protestors as first-class citizens." Non-critical office spaces are designated "remote," and gyms are limited to 10% capacity indoors. The State thus single[d] out religion for worse treatment than many secular activities [p. 4]. See Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 545 (1985). "Enjoining restrictions because they have proven effective in curbing COVID-19 would be like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet, " the State argues. On this point, the County shows that as of August 26, 2020, it "had issued 144 citations for violations of the County's COVID-19 public health orders." 8 n.4.) Point Cloud, Stiepel Village Church in Bochum, North Rhine - YouTube SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH and BISHOP ARTHUR HODGES III, Petitioners, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, in his ofcial capacity as the Governor of California, et al., Respondents. (Id. Timothy M. White, Office of County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendants Wilma J. Wooten, Helen Robbins-Meyer, William D. Gore. 57.) SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH V. NEWSOM | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse Case: South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom 3:20-cv-00865 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Filed Date: May 8, 2020 Case Ongoing Clearinghouse coding complete Report an error/make a suggestion Request an update Case Summary PDF R Supreme Court of The United States The Ninth Circuit granted their request. 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. filed. Hr'g Tr. https://www.becketlaw.org/case/harvest-rock-church-v-newsom/. 202-349-7219 Nonetheless, the applicants were given the avenue to prove if the singing ban was not neutral and advance their claim. Brief of respondents Gavin Newsom, et al. 3.) The Court similarly grants the State's and Plaintiffs requests for judicial notice as to the contents of public records and government documents. Ex. On May 29, 2020, the Supreme Court denied an injunction in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. 57-7, 69.) This website may use cookies to improve your experience. 61-1.) That said, unlike the Harvest Rock plaintiffs, Plaintiffs here submit evidence that includes a declaration from the medical director of a family medical group, Dr. George Delgado, who has "been intimately involved in planning for the current coronavirus disease for [his] family medical group and hospice." 53-4.) This Court has stated that discrimination against religion is "odious to our Constitution." 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."