U.S. at , 140 S.Ct. 30:319.) Dr. Delgado provided a similar declaration in support of Plaintiffs initial motion for injunctive relief. (Id. See 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. Hr'g Tr. 45.) 21.) See July 10 Tr. 31; Dr. Rutherford Decl. On February 5, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that enjoined Californias total ban on indoor worship. California was apparently the only state to go so far as to ban all indoor religious services. Such discrimination violates the First Amendment. 2020 WL 5835219, at *2. 6, ECF No. (See id. Bishop Hodges further explains: " Zoom Meetings and other tele-conferencing applications are inadequate substitutes [for in-person services] as they curtail a minister's ability to lay hands upon a congregant or perform a baptism. SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, a California nonprofit corporation; BISHOP ARTHUR HODGES III, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as the Governor of California; XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as the 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." WebSubject: Re: South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 11:55:00 AM Attachments: image001.png Dear Paul, State Public Health officials have lifted all mandatory capacity restrictions on houses of worship and plan to lift all current capacity restrictions on June 15. 30:319.). Sept. 2, 2020), and the Ninth Circuit's subsequent opinion, No. The Court similarly grants the State's and Plaintiffs requests for judicial notice as to the contents of public records and government documents. (Dr. Watt Decl. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Importantly, the Church is willing to abide by the States rules that apply to comparable secular businesses, including the rules regarding social distancing and hygiene. Docketed: May 26, 2020: Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Case Numbers: (20-55533) Decision Date: Rehearing Denied: Discretionary Court Decision Date: NN at 56; see also Dr. Watt Decl. (Dr. Watt Decl. 1-3.) 53). Rather, the evidence's form impacts the weight it is given when the court assesses the merits of equitable relief. See also Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman , 794 F.3d 1064, 108384 (9th Cir. But "restrictions inexplicably applied to one group and exempted from another do little to further these goals and do much to burden religious freedom." 61-5).) Counting votes in the South Bay decision (ECF No. 2056324. S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 959 F.3d 938, 939 (9th Cir. Cynthia Bashant, United States District Judge. Moreover, neither Plaintiffs evidence nor their arguments convincingly show that the current restrictions exceed "those broad limits." 20-cv-865 (Dec. 21, 2020) (this case below) (denying renewed motion for preliminary injunc-tion). The order would terminate upon a writ of certiorari being denied, or upon the sending down of the judgment of the Court if the writ of certiorari was granted. Meanwhile, on July 10, 2020, while Plaintiffs interlocutory appeal was pending, Plaintiffs moved this Court for an indicative ruling to revisit its denial of their initial motion. 1:133:4; Reply to State's Opp'n 1:1325; see also Dr. Watt Decl. Justia Opinion Summary. 25, 33, 43.) , 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. (See Mot. (Id. Timothy M. White, Office of County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendants Wilma J. Wooten, Helen Robbins-Meyer, William D. Gore. Specifically, total bans placed on indoor worship services was given strict scrutiny based on their disproportionate impact and were deemed not narrowly tailored enough to still accommodate freedoms under the Free Exercise Clause. Still, upon closer examination, it was noted that music, film, and television studios were permitted to sing indoors. League, Inc. v. Lamont. Roberts v. Neace , 958 F.3d 409, 414 (CA6 2020) (per curiam ). 40, 51.) Failing this neutrality test, the government policy had to be justified by a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to forward that interest. Timothy M. White, Office of County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendants Wilma J. Wooten, Helen Robbins-Meyer, William D. Gore. I would grant the Church's requested temporary injunction because California's latest safety guidelines discriminate against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses. 53-4.) Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc. , 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. ), Bishop Hodges explains that "singing is at the heart of our worship services, and comprises 2550% of our typical Pentecostal worship gathering experience at Church." 20A136 (20746) _________________ SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, ET AL., v. GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom 2020) Annotate this Case. Exs. DF, ECF No. California already trusts its residents and any number of businesses to adhere to proper social distancing and hygiene practices. In Progress 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. Therefore, the Court focuses its analysis on these claims. 112 Humboldt Ave. Dorchester, MA 02121. Only three of those items were issued to places of worship. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom , U.S. , 140 S. Ct. 1613, 207 L. Ed. 1-13.) South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom R. Evid. "The more people that gather, the higher the likelihood that an infected person will be present. 21; Dr. Rutherford Decl. Ex. (See Renewed Mot. Summary of this case from Legacy Church, Inc. v. Kunkel In South Bay, the Supreme Court denied an application for injunctive relief enjoining enforcement of a S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom South Bay United Pentecostal Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissented and would not have granted any relief. 42; see also Dr. Rutherford Decl. (Dr. Delgado Decl. WebBrooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020); South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 716 (2021), and Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom, No. 57-3 (opining that "the novel coronavirus pandemic calls for extraordinary measures to protect the population" not only because it causes serious illness or death, but also because there is "emerging evidence that the virus has serious lasting, and possibly long-term, effects on some individuals"), and Imrey Decl. 12-3.). 47.) As summarized above, San Diego County is in the State's "red" tierTier 2. 2-2, 2-3, 2-4. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, No. 20-55533 716, finally granted a major portion of the injunctive relief that it had refused to offer when the case came to the Court earlier. The illness caused by the virus, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has killed more than ten thousand people in California and sickened many more. ), July 13 Closure Order. The Governor also ordered a ban on indoor singing and chanting. The State again appeared to favor protect[ing] lucrative industries while denying similar largesse to its faithful [p. 5]. (See Dr. Watt Decl. S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Gateway City Church v. Newsom The Court highlighted that "the services involve people sitting together in a closed environment for long periods of time." In determining whether a law discriminates against religion, courts compare the treatment of religious conduct and "analogous non-religious conduct" and consider whether the governmental interests "could be achieved by narrower ordinances that burden[ ] religion to a far lesser degree." See S. Bay Church , 959 F.3d at 939 (citing Lukumi , 508 U.S. at 532, 113 S.Ct. Plaintiffs lodge 142 evidentiary objections to the evidence submitted by California and the County. In response to the COVID19 health crisis, California has now limited attendance at religious worship services to 25% of building capacity or 100 attendees, whichever is lower. Because people may be infected but asymptomatic, they may unwittingly infect others. They filed a supplemental brief to challenge the State's May 25 guidelines. Nor does the evidence show the County has treated comparable secular businesses or activities more favorably than religious organizations. Tandon v. Newsom 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. (See Dr. Delgado Decl. Ex. 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." 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.").) 11.) 2. 38.) 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." Docketed: Linked with 20-746: Party name: Gavin Newsom, et al. Justice Kagan argued that the majoritys order defied the Courts caselaw, exceeded its judicial role, and risked exacerbating the COVID-19 pandemic. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v (SAC Ex. Charles S. LiMandri, Milan Louis Brandon, II, LiMandri & Jonna LLP, Jeffrey M. Trissell, Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, Paul Michael Jonna, Law Offices of Charles S. LiMandri, APC, Rancho Santa Fe, CA, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon & Smith LLP, Mark Philip Meuser, Dhillon Law Group, Inc., San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs. In response, Plaintiffs claim the County "misses the point" because the County "treats protestors as first-class citizens." 57; see also Renewed Mot. On April 9, the U.S. Supreme Court granted an emergency injunction pending appeal in Tandon v. Newsom and ruled that Gov. He reasoned that indoor worship services are comparable to "factories, offices, supermarkets," and various other secular establishments that were not subject to the same occupancy cap. (Bishop Hodges Decl. 2141, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993) ; McDaniel , 435 U.S. 618, 98 S.Ct. (Id. ) 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. 2009) ("A district court may, however, consider hearsay in deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction. SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gavin NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of California, et al., Defendants. In rebuttal to Imrey's detailed critique, Dr. Delgado states that "there are presently no adequate models or methodologies to compare risks, and so I cite none" and that his assessment is based "on common scientific sense." (Id. v. City of Santa Monica 784 F.3d 1286 (9th Cir. (Dr. Watt Decl. 57-2 (explaining that having "a single infectious disease as a top ranking cause of death signals a serious change" because "[i]nfectious diseases were commonly the top causes of death decades ago, but they have been replaced with chronic diseases more recently because our public health efforts have led to reductions in infectious disease"), and Dr. Rutherford Decl. Supreme Court. Further, the Court preemptively addressed the capacity restrictions that would come into effect where indoor services were permitted a 25% capacity limitation. "Currently there is no vaccine available in the United States and no generally effective treatment for COVID-19." The only secular conduct favored better was the kind that experts deemed did not carry a comparable COVID-19 risk. 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. ), Executive Order N-33-20. 45.) Applicants seek to enjoin enforcement of the Order. 8.) 93103; Dr. Rutherford Decl. U.S. at , 140 S.Ct. Among raising other objections, Plaintiffs argue certain evidence is hearsay, irrelevant, "more prejudicial than probative," or lacks foundation. The Ninth Circuit also determined the remaining injunction factors "do not counsel in favor of injunctive relief." 20A136 (20746) _________________ SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, ET AL., v. GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. WebSouth Bay United Pentecostal Church has applied for temporary injunctive relief from Californias 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services. The Court considers the public records and government documents attached to the Second Amended Complaint because their authenticity is not questioned. The temporary nature of the prohibitions did not placate concerns, particularly since the State maintained a dubious timeline with continuously changing goalposts. 25:1925, ECF No. Ex. Share this Case For the Media Featured Media It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. Becket Further, the Court analyzes these claims in light of the current restrictions that apply to the Church. at 1:12142.) She noted that it remained unclear whether the singing ban applied across the board or only favored certain sectors. 3.) 37 (noting that "[w]e have learned a lot about treatment of the novel coronavirus since the beginning of the pandemic and treatments have improved," but "they are far from curative"); Dr. Watt Decl. 47; see also SAC Ex. In South Bay, the Supreme Court denied an application for injunctive relief enjoining enforcement of a portion of the California governor's executive order to limit the spread of COVID-19. (Bishop Hodges Decl. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 ; see also Fed. After the Court denied Plaintiffs request for extraordinary relief, they appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and concurrently requested an emergency injunction, which was denied. 19-A1046 (Mot. See Blueprint for a Safer EconomyCurrent Tier Assignments as of October 13, 2020, https://covid19.ca.gov/safer-economy/; see also Fed. Santa Clara County has ordered all churches to remain closed during Lent and Easter, contrary to the United States Supreme Courts order in South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (South Bay II). Therefore, Plaintiffs do not meet their burden on this point. 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]. (See Renewed Mot. WebWelcome to Church Finder - the best way to find Christian churches in Burlington MA. Now before the Court is Plaintiffs renewed motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. In determining whether to grant extraordinary relief, this Court is not bound by Plaintiffs counsel's interpretation of CDC statistics or what they believe is an acceptable death rate for COVID-19 compared to other causes of deathmany of which are not contagious and are well-understood by the scientific community. Plaintiffs then filed their Second Amended Complaint. Litigation David Cortman regarding the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom and order in Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom that halt California Gov. (Dr. Delgado Decl. Likewise, the Court upheld the 25% capacity limitation on indoor worship services. Bay United Pentecostal Church v 61; Reply to County's Opp'n, ECF No. The same is true for the distinction between indoor and outdoor group singing. 2012) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong , 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S.Ct. But the Church objects to a 25% occupancy cap that is imposed on religious worship services but not imposed on those comparable secular businesses. In Catholic Diocese, this Court enjoined an identical 10-person restriction on religious gatherings when nonreligious gatherings were not so limited. See infra note 7. Justice Kavanaugh dissented. 25.) Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. See supra Part II.A, E. Hence, the Court agrees that by focusing on outdoor protests, "Plaintiffs are comparing apples and oranges." Among other things, Dr. Delgado states, "I feel that going to one's church, synagogue or mosque should be much safer than going to the grocery store, participating in a protest, or working at a manufacturing facility." In my view, Californias discrimination against religious worship services contravenes Dec. 24, 2020); Gish v. (Dr. Watt Decl. 43.) NN, ECF No. As a result, the Constitution did not require different things to be treated in law as though they were the same. (Grabarsky Decl. 32.) 4.) Justia Opinion Summary. The applicants separately requested an injunction pending appeal from the district courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to prohibit the restrictions enforcement. Ultimately, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have not met their burden to demonstrate they are entitled to a preliminary injunction"an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." 2217 ); see supra Part II.E. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom States simply had to treat similar cases alike and could treat dissimilar cases accordingly. 30; see also id. 15. Ex. Specifically, there was no basis to override the health decision to prohibit singing indoors as that was deemed to increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Global Perspective demonstrates how the courts decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions. 16103; Dr. Rutherford Decl. (Dr. Watt Decl. ), On May 8, 2020, Plaintiffs filed this action against various State and County officials. WebUnited Pentecostal Church is located approximately 33 miles from Framingham. An earlier version of California's restrictions prohibited Plaintiffs from holding any in-person worship services. 61-1.) See S. Bay Church , U.S. at , 140 S. Ct. at 1614 (Roberts, C.J.). None of those 144 citations was issued to places of worship or persons engaged in religious services. 2015)..40, 42 South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom 140 S.Ct. 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. 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. South Bay United Pentecostal Church The Court assigns Dr. Delgado's declaration minimal weight. (Id. She outlined the demand for neutrality in First Amendment actions impacting religion. 2d 908, 912 (C.D. Plaintiffs are challenging the State and County's restrictions on indoor worship and group singingnot outdoor gatherings or protests. "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. SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, et al. The State thus single[d] out religion for worse treatment than many secular activities [p. 4]. Plaintiffs tailor their renewed motion to their "Free Exercise Claims under the U.S. and California Constitutions." 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. Along with worship services, the church ministers to the faithful by performing baptisms, funerals, weddings, and other religious ceremonies. Read the Complaint. The party seeking the injunction bears the burden of proving these elements. ), Third, the Court reasoned that, even if the equivalent of strict scrutiny applied to Plaintiffs state constitutional free exercise claim, the restrictions were narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interestthe State's interest in protecting public health. (Renewed Mot., ECF No. 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. Arthur E. Hodges II, sued California South Bay United Pentecostal Church v v. Holder , 570 U.S. 529, 590, 133 S.Ct. S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom - Casetext "); Rosen Entm't Sys., LP v. Eiger Vision , 343 F. Supp. Thomas More Society and South Bay United Pentecostal Church have achieved what can now be called a complete victory at the United States Supreme Court with an April 26, 2021, order vacating the Ninth Circuits prior erroneous judgment in the case.. (Dr. Delgado Decl. upholding order limiting in-person worship to 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever was lower. Although not binding, the Court finds Chief Justice Roberts's reasoning in this case to be compelling. The State also claims Plaintiffs "ignore the reason for why the State has been able to slow the spread of the disease: the imposition of the very types of public health restrictions that Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin." 25.) The order cited the Supreme Court case of Tandon v. (Dr. Rutherford Decl. 2004) (applying the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in Flynt to objections to the defendant's evidence). See Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority , 469 U.S. 528, 545, 105 S.Ct. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-55533 D.C. No. 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-home (Renewed Mot. WebUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS . at 1614. The requirements of these protocols, such as testing employees multiple times a week, could not feasibly be applied to the congregation of a house of worship [p. 4].
Stonebrook Parkway Apartments Frisco, Tx,
Pierce Elementary Cedar Rapids,
Articles S