445 F.Supp.3d 758
E.D. Cal.2020Background
- Cross Culture Christian Church (Pastor Jonathan Duncan) held in-person services in Lodi, CA; state and San Joaquin County issued COVID-19 stay-at-home and mass-gathering orders in March 2020.
- The Church continued in-person services; local law enforcement posted notices and a County Public Health Officer issued an Order Prohibiting Public Assembly to the landlord; the landlord changed the locks and law enforcement barred access.
- Plaintiffs sued state, county, and city officials seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin enforcement of the State and County orders against the Church so long as the Church complied with CDC social-distancing guidance.
- Defendants opposed, arguing the orders are valid emergency public-health measures, neutral and generally applicable, and RLUIPA does not apply.
- The court took judicial notice of public records and governmental documents and denied the ex parte TRO, finding plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the merits or to raise serious questions warranting preliminary relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of emergency public-health powers (Jacobson challenge) | Orders lack real/substantial relation to public health; Church can safely meet under CDC protocols | Orders are valid emergency exercises aimed at reducing transmission; courts defer to public-health judgments | Court: Orders bear a real and substantial relation to public health under Jacobson; plaintiffs not likely to succeed |
| Free Exercise Clause | Orders facially and functionally discriminate by allowing remote "faith-based" services but barring in-person worship | Orders are neutral and generally applicable restrictions on gatherings, not targeted at religion; subject to rational-basis review | Court: Orders are neutral and generally applicable; rational-basis review applies; plaintiffs unlikely to succeed |
| RLUIPA claim | Orders substantially burden religious exercise and therefore trigger RLUIPA protection | RLUIPA applies to land-use/zoning, not general conduct-regulating public-health orders | Court: RLUIPA does not apply to these orders; plaintiffs unlikely to succeed |
| TRO standards (Winter / Alliance for Wild Rockies) | Church will follow CDC and county rules; irreparable harm absent TRO | Plaintiffs fail to show likelihood of success or serious questions on the merits, so TRO not warranted | Court: Denies TRO because plaintiffs are neither likely to succeed nor raise serious questions; court need not reach remaining factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (upholding state police-power public-health measures and articulating deferential review in epidemics)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (neutrality and targeting analysis under the Free Exercise Clause)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for injunctive relief including likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (alternative "serious questions" test for preliminary relief)
- Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, 794 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2015) (neutral law of general applicability and rational-basis review in Free Exercise context)
- Guru Nanak Sikh Soc. of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2006) (limits on RLUIPA applicability and congressional intent to confine RLUIPA to land-use and prison contexts)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (context and interpretation of federal religious-accommodation statutes)
- FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (burden on challenger to negate conceivable bases for a law under rational-basis review)