555 F.Supp.3d 53
D.N.J.2021Background
- Two New Jersey churches (Solid Rock Baptist and Bible Baptist) and their pastors sued state and local officials challenging Governor Murphy’s Executive Order 107 (EO 107) that, at the pandemic outset, limited indoor gatherings to ten persons, alleging violations of the Free Exercise Clause, Equal Protection, Assembly, and related state constitutional provisions.
- Churches held indoor services in May 2020 with social‑distancing protocols; criminal complaints were filed in municipal court against the pastors for allegedly violating EO 107; plaintiffs allege selective enforcement and prosecutorial refusal to negotiate pleas.
- Plaintiffs filed an emergency preliminary injunction in June 2020; the district court denied that motion in August 2020 and permitted amendment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and later moved for reconsideration relying on recent Supreme Court pandemic‑restriction decisions.
- Governor Murphy rescinded EO 107 in June 2020 (EO 152/153 and subsequent orders relaxed or removed the original gathering caps), and New Jersey later allowed unrestricted outdoor religious services.
- Defendants moved to dismiss arguing the claims are moot because EO 107 was rescinded and urged Younger abstention as to the ongoing municipal criminal prosecutions; plaintiffs disputed mootness and invoked intervening U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
- The district court denied reconsideration, held plaintiffs’ challenges moot, granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, and abstained under Younger as to the pending state prosecutions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of facial and as‑applied challenges to EO 107 | EO 107 could recur; pandemic orders ebb and flow so case not moot | EO 107 was rescinded and replaced; alleged injury ameliorated so claims are moot | Claims are moot because EO 107 was terminated and recurrence is speculative |
| Applicability of Younger abstention to pending municipal prosecutions | Prosecutor acted in bad faith and refused plea negotiations; exceptions to Younger apply | State criminal prosecutions are judicial, involve important state interests, and allow federal defenses in state court | Court abstained under Younger; state proceedings must be litigated in state court |
| Motion for reconsideration based on intervening Supreme Court rulings (Roman Catholic, Robinson, Tandon) | Recent Supreme Court pandemic decisions require strict scrutiny and support injunctive relief; court should revisit denial | Those rulings don’t change the mootness analysis because EO 107 is rescinded; Tandon concerns live orders | Motion for reconsideration denied because intervening decisions do not cure mootness of a terminated order |
| Selective enforcement / equal protection and bad‑faith prosecution claims | Plaintiffs allege targeted enforcement (cameras, prosecutorial directives) showing bad faith | Plaintiffs can raise selective‑enforcement and constitutional defenses in state court; federal abstention still appropriate | Allegations are insufficient to avoid Younger; state forum is adequate to litigate those claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. _ (2020) (Supreme Court relief for religious institutions against certain COVID‑related occupancy restrictions)
- Tandon v. Newsom, 593 U.S. _ (2021) (Supreme Court decision applying strict scrutiny to certain COVID‑19 restrictions on religious gatherings)
- Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) (voluntary cessation doctrine and mootness principles)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standard for mootness and voluntary cessation)
- Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982) (Younger abstention framework for state proceedings)
- Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117 (1975) (Younger exceptions for bad faith, flagrant constitutional violations, or extraordinary circumstances)
- Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (1979) (Younger abstention and its exceptions)
- Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) (mootness requires more than speculation that challenged activity will resume)
- Black United Fund of N.J., Inc. v. Kean, 763 F.2d 156 (3d Cir. 1985) (mootness when the injunction’s raison d'être has disappeared)
- Rendell v. Rumsfeld, 484 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2007) (mootness and prospects for future relief after circumstances change)
- Schall v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101 (3d Cir. 1989) (factors supporting abstention: judicial nature, important state interests, adequate opportunity to raise federal claims)
- Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (standards for motions for reconsideration under local rules)
- North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194 (3d Cir. 1995) (standards for reconsideration and when it may be granted)
- Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir. 1985) (purpose of a motion for reconsideration)