496 F.Supp.3d 284
D.D.C.2020Background
- Capitol Hill Baptist Church (est. 1878) has a sincerely held doctrine requiring a weekly, in-person assembly of the entire congregation; pre-COVID attendance approached ~1,000 and most members live in D.C.
- In March 2020 Mayor Bowser declared a public-health emergency; Phase Two rules (in effect) limit places of worship to the lesser of 50% capacity or 100 persons, applying equally to indoor and outdoor gatherings.
- The Church requested a waiver to hold outdoor services with masks and six-foot distancing; the District denied the waiver and warned of civil/admin penalties for violations; the Church sued and moved for an expedited preliminary injunction.
- The Church argued the restrictions substantially burden its exercise of religion under RFRA and sought to enjoin enforcement as to its proposed outdoor, masked, distanced services; the District defended on public-health grounds and cited COVID deference/Jacobson and alternatives (multiple services, drive‑in, online, meeting in Virginia).
- The Court held a hearing (no evidentiary hearing); it found the Church likely to prevail on its RFRA claim, that irreparable harm would result absent relief, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District's 100-person cap (indoor/outdoor) substantially burdens the Church's exercise of religion under RFRA | The cap prevents the Church from meeting as a single congregation as required by its sincere religious convictions | The Church can use alternatives (multiple services, drive‑in, online) or meet outside D.C. | Substantial burden found: the rule forces Church to choose between violating law or violating beliefs |
| Whether applying RFRA's strict-scrutiny (compelling interest / least‑restrictive means) is satisfied by the District's prohibition on the Church's proposed outdoor, masked, distanced services | The District has not shown with evidence a compelling interest in barring the proposed services nor that no less‑restrictive means exist; disparate treatment of protests/restaurants undercuts the claim | The public-health interest is compelling; Jacobson and pandemic deference justify restrictions; protests differ from worship | District failed to demonstrate a compelling interest and least‑restrictive means as applied to the Church's proposal; injunction warranted |
| Whether the Church will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief | Loss of RFRA/First Amendment–protected religious exercise is irreparable; alternatives are not acceptable substitutes and many members cannot travel to Virginia | Delay in suing and available alternatives reduce claimed harm | Irreparable harm established (loss of religious freedom cannot be remedied later) |
| Whether the balance of equities and public interest support relief | Protecting statutory religious liberty and the Church's proposed safety measures favor injunction | Public interest in disease control favors enforcement of restrictions | The equities and public interest favor the Church, given the lack of evidence District met RFRA burdens; preliminary injunction granted for Church's proposed outdoor, masked, distanced services |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (establishing RFRA burden‑shifting and strict‑scrutiny framework)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (RFRA protections extend to closely held entities; scope of religious‑exercise protection)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (substantial‑burden inquiry focuses on the effect on the adherent, not centrality of practice)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (historical public‑health deference in epidemics; discussed but deemed inapposite to displace RFRA)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669 (D.C. Circuit RFRA substantial‑burden analysis)
- League of Women Voters of the United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1 (preliminary injunction factors in D.C. Circuit)
- Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, 957 F.3d 610 (Sixth Circuit RFRA decision enjoining similar COVID restrictions)