459 F.Supp.3d 273
D. Me.2020Background
- Calvary Chapel of Bangor sued Governor Janet Mills seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin Maine executive orders that limit in-person gatherings to ten people during the COVID-19 emergency.
- Maine issued a series of COVID-19 orders (Exec. Orders 14, 19, 28, 49) restricting non-essential gatherings, permitting drive‑in services and online worship, and adopting a phased Restarting Plan with DECD checklists for safe reopening.
- DECD guidance for "Places of Worship" allows streaming and limited drive‑in (stay‑in‑vehicle) services subject to distancing and operational rules; churches may also hold gatherings of up to ten people indoors.
- Calvary Chapel alleged violations of the Free Exercise, Free Speech, Assembly, and Establishment Clauses, Maine constitutional provisions, RLUIPA, and other claims; it sought emergency relief to hold larger in‑person services.
- The court applied the four‑factor TRO/preliminary injunction standard, emphasized likelihood of success as dispositive, considered Jacobson deference in a public‑health emergency, and concluded Calvary Chapel was unlikely to prevail.
- The court denied the TRO, finding the Gathering Orders neutral, generally applicable, rationally related to public health objectives, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free Exercise Clause | Orders substantially burden religious worship by capping gatherings at ten and singling out faith‑based events | Orders are neutral, generally applicable public‑health measures; drive‑in/online alternatives permitted; measures rationally related to preventing spread | Plaintiff unlikely to succeed; Jacobson deference and rational‑basis/neutrality analysis favor State |
| Establishment Clause | Restrictions target or disfavor religion vs secular activity | Orders have a secular public‑health purpose, do not advance/inhibit religion, and avoid entanglement | Plaintiff unlikely to succeed; orders survive Lemon test |
| Free Speech / Assembly | Limits on worship are content‑ or viewpoint‑based restrictions on speech and assembly | Restrictions address public‑health risk, are neutral and leave alternative channels (streaming, drive‑in, small gatherings) | Plaintiff unlikely to succeed; claims linked to failed free‑exercise theory |
| TRO factors / Irreparable Harm & Public Interest | Church will suffer irreparable injury from being limited in‑person | Harm to public health and reopening efforts if injunction issued; alternatives mitigate church harm; State interest outweighs plaintiff | Balance favors State; TRO denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Mass., 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (courts defer to reasonable public‑health measures during epidemics)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (law is not neutral if object is to target religious practice)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (neutral, generally applicable laws receive rational‑basis review under Free Exercise analysis)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (Establishment Clause test: secular purpose, primary effect, and entanglement)
- Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018) (evidence of governmental animus can invalidate otherwise neutral rules)
- In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 2020) (Jacobson framework applied to review COVID‑19 related restrictions)