Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, 984 F.3d 21

Background

In March–April 2020 Governor Janet Mills issued four executive orders in Maine restricting gatherings (including faith-based events) and imposing a phased reopening plan to limit COVID-19 transmission.
Calvary Chapel of Bangor sued on May 5, 2020, alleging multiple federal and state constitutional and statutory violations (Free Exercise, Assembly, Free Speech, Establishment, Equal Protection, RLUIPA, etc.) and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction.
The district court conducted a brief telephone conference, received the Governor’s expedited opposition, and denied the Chapel’s TRO request without a full adversarial hearing or a developed record, expressly treating the matter as a TRO ruling.
The Chapel appealed the TRO denial directly to the First Circuit, arguing the denial was immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (orders refusing injunctions).
The First Circuit held the appeal premature: the denial of a TRO is not ordinarily appealable and the Chapel failed the three-part test for treating a TRO denial as effectively denying injunctive relief; the court dismissed the appeal without prejudice for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the First Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over the denial of the TRO under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)	TRO denial functionally denied injunctive relief and is immediately appealable	Denial of a TRO is not ordinarily an injunction under § 1292(a)(1); no jurisdiction absent the three-part showing	No jurisdiction; TRO denial not appealable here
Whether the TRO denial had the practical effect of denying injunctive relief (first prong of the three-part test)	District court’s swift denial foreclosed meaningful further interim relief	District court limited ruling to TRO, did not conduct a full adversarial hearing; additional relief (preliminary injunction) remained available	Failed: no full adversarial hearing and further interlocutory relief remained viable
Whether denial caused serious (irreparable) harm warranting immediate review (second prong)	Temporary curtailment of in-person worship inflicts serious, irreparable constitutional injury	Harm must be assessed in context of public-health emergency; alternative worship options and the short-term nature of relief mitigate irreparable harm	Failed: context and alternatives (online, drive-in, ≤10 persons) reduced the likelihood of serious irreparable harm
Whether immediate appeal is the only effective way to vindicate the Chapel’s rights (third prong)	Delay would frustrate effective review of First Amendment harms	Chapel could pursue a preliminary-injunction hearing promptly; denial of a preliminary injunction would be immediately appealable	Failed: effective appellate review available through ordinary preliminary-injunction process

Key Cases Cited

S.F. Real Est. Inv'rs. v. Real Est. Inv. Tr. of Am., 692 F.2d 814 (1st Cir. 1982) (TROs are generally not "injunctions" for § 1292(a)(1) purposes)
Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y v. Colombani, 712 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2013) (three-part test for when a TRO denial may be treated as denying an injunction)
Fideicomiso De La Tierra Del Caño Martín Peña v. Fortuño, 582 F.3d 131 (1st Cir. 2009) (practical-effect standard for TRO appealability)
Whitfield v. Mun. of Fajardo, 564 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2009) (courts must address jurisdictional defects sua sponte)
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (public-health measures receive deference but remain subject to constitutional review)
Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981) (assessment of irreparable harm requires contextual balancing)
Morales Feliciano v. Rullan, 303 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (close jurisdictional calls are resolved against immediate appealability)
S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (2020) (public officials get latitude in pandemic response; courts should consider dynamic, fact-intensive context)