480 F.Supp.3d 585
D.N.J.2020Background
- Plaintiffs are two New Jersey churches (Solid Rock Baptist Church and Bible Baptist Church of Clementon) and their pastors who held indoor worship services in May 2020 with more than 10 attendees and were later charged under state COVID-related executive orders.
- New Jersey emergency orders initially banned gatherings over 10 people (EO 107 clarified by AO 2020-4), later distinguishing indoor/outdoor limits (EO 148), then exempting outdoor political/religious activity (EO 152), and ultimately permitting indoor worship at 25% capacity but capping attendance at 100 persons (EO 156).
- Plaintiffs challenge the indoor-capacity rules as violating the Free Exercise Clause and seek a preliminary injunction to permit larger indoor services while complying with safety protocols they adopted (masks, distancing, sanitation, reservations, temperature checks).
- Plaintiffs emphasize disparate treatment: large outdoor social justice protests were effectively tolerated and later exempted, while their indoor worship resulted in criminal citations; they argue viewpoint discrimination and insufficient tailoring of limits to public-health goals.
- The State defends the capacity and numeric caps as neutral, generally applicable public-health measures rationally related to reducing COVID-19 transmission and administratively necessary for contact tracing; it stresses judicial deference on pandemic policy.
- The Court found relief from the 10-person rule effectively granted by later orders, concluded plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits as to the remaining challenges, denied the preliminary injunction without prejudice, and permitted amendment to add a selective-enforcement claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Executive Orders are neutral and generally applicable | Murphy's limits target religious gatherings while exempting or treating secular/commercial activities more favorably (e.g., retail, airports, tolerated protests) | Orders are facially neutral; comparable high-risk secular gatherings (concerts, theaters) are also restricted; exemptions are for dissimilar, lower-risk activities | Court: Orders are neutral and generally applicable (citing Supreme Court pandemic precedent) |
| Whether the 25% and 100-person limits are rationally related to a legitimate public-health interest | Limits are arbitrary, not narrowly tailored; churches implemented mitigation (reservations, masks, distancing) that would allow larger services safely | Limits are rationally related to reducing spread and aiding contact tracing; States get deference on dynamic public-health choices | Court: State met rational-basis under deference to public-health judgments; plaintiffs failed to rebut state justifications |
| Selective enforcement / viewpoint discrimination (tolerance of protests vs. citations for churches) | State tolerated/encouraged large outdoor protests and later dismissed related charges, but prosecuted indoor worship — evidence of selective enforcement and viewpoint preference | State points to outdoor/indoor distinction, public-safety judgment, and prosecutorial discretion; no pleaded selective-enforcement claim in complaint | Court: Did not reach merits (no selective-enforcement claim pled); allowed plaintiffs 30 days to amend if they wish to assert it |
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction | First Amendment injury is irreparable and injunction is needed to prevent prosecutions and preserve worship | Public-health harms and deference to state officials; plaintiffs cannot show likelihood of success on the merits | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success; PI DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; plaintiffs may amend complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (incorporation of Free Exercise Clause against states)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (laws targeting religion trigger strict scrutiny)
- Tenafly Eruv Ass'n v. Borough of Tenafly, 309 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2002) (neutrality and general-applicability framework for free-exercise claims)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (judicial deference to state public-health measures)
- South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (2020) (Supreme Court denied emergency relief against similar COVID-19 capacity limits)
- Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700 (3d Cir. 2004) (four-factor preliminary-injunction standard)
- Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 922 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2019) (discretionary balancing when preliminary-injunction factors met)
- Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, 586 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2009) (standard for proving municipal selective enforcement/intentional discrimination)
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (sincere religious belief claims can implicate Free Exercise)