463 F.Supp.3d 519
D. Del.2020Background
- Plaintiff Rev. Dr. Christopher A. Bullock, pastor of Canaan Baptist Church, sued Governor John C. Carney challenging COVID-19 emergency orders and DPH guidance that restricted in-person religious services.
- Delaware declared a State of Emergency on March 13, 2020 and issued multiple Modifications; the Tenth Modification (Apr. 6) banned in-person worship over ten persons.
- The Governor’s Eighteenth Modification (effective May 20) replaced the flat 10-person ban with a regime allowing either 10 persons or up to 30% fire-code occupancy if DPH guidelines were followed; DPH issued detailed guidance on May 18 and revised it on May 23.
- Bullock filed a Verified Complaint (May 19) and moved for a TRO (filed May 22) seeking to enjoin enforcement of the emergency orders/guidance and to preserve a status quo he described as treating houses of worship like other ‘‘essential businesses.’’
- The Court held a telephonic hearing (May 28). The May 23 DPH guidance relaxed several earlier prohibitions (e.g., on choirs, microphones, age-based bans) but retained mandatory hygiene and masking requirements for worship activities.
- The Court denied the TRO because (1) the TRO would not preserve the parties’ last peaceable, noncontested status but would instead impose a more restrictive regime than the current guidance, and (2) Bullock failed to show irreparable harm with admissible evidence supporting imminent injury from the challenged requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper status quo to preserve for TRO | Preserve status quo of Fourth Modification treating houses of worship like the 237 essential businesses (no 10-person cap) | Status quo is the last peaceable, noncontested condition (May 13/earlier orders); current May 23 guidance is less restrictive than Tenth Modification | Court: The operative last peaceable status was May 13; TRO would preserve a more restrictive status than current May 23 guidance, so TRO inappropriate |
| Irreparable harm from specific restrictions (masking while preaching; no holding during baptism; communion limits) | These requirements irreparably burden religious exercise and will harm worship practices imminently | No admissible evidence that communion/baptism or mask exemption issues would occur imminently; attorney argument insufficient | Court: Plaintiff failed to present evidence of imminent irreparable harm; TRO denied |
| Likelihood of success on constitutional merits (Free Exercise / Equal Protection) | Emergency orders and DPH rules unlawfully discriminate against religion and violate First and Fourteenth Amendments | Measures are neutral public-health regulations addressing an epidemic and implicate state police power (Jacobson) | Court: Did not decide merits; denied TRO because plaintiff failed first two TRO factors |
| Balance of equities / public interest | Protect free exercise and equal treatment | Protect public health and safety during pandemic | Court: Did not reach final balancing after finding status-quo/irreparable-harm failures |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (temporary restraining orders are extraordinary remedies; movant bears clear burden)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary-injunction/TRO framework: likelihood of success and irreparable harm required)
- Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2017) (court balances all four preliminary-injunction factors together)
- Arrowpoint Capital Corp. v. Arrowpoint Asset Mgmt., LLC, 793 F.3d 313 (3d Cir. 2015) (status quo defined as last peaceable, noncontested status)
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 1996) (purpose of TRO is to preserve the status quo pending resolution)
- Hope v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 956 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2020) (TROs ordinarily aim to preserve the status quo)
- Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Mass., 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (states have authority to protect public health during epidemics)