977 F.3d 728
9th Cir.2020Background:
- Harvest Rock Church sued to enjoin enforcement of California Governor Newsom’s COVID-19 Executive Orders as applied to in-person worship; the district court denied a preliminary injunction and Harvest Rock sought an injunction pending appeal from the Ninth Circuit.
- California’s “Blueprint for a Safer Economy” imposes tiered restrictions: Tier 1 counties ban indoor worship; other tiers cap worship attendance by percentage and absolute limits.
- The State submitted an expert declaration (Dr. James Watt) asserting elevated risk from indoor congregate activities; Harvest Rock offered no competing expert evidence at the preliminary stage.
- The majority denied the emergency injunction, finding the district court relied on the only record evidence about transmission risk and that the Orders treat worship similarly to some other indoor congregate activities.
- Judge O’SCANNLAIN dissented, arguing the scheme is non-neutral and discriminates against religious worship because many secular activities with similar transmission risks are treated more favorably and some non-worship functions at houses of worship are exempted.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harvest Rock is likely to succeed on Free Exercise claim (discrimination) | CA treats worship worse than comparable secular activities so strict scrutiny applies | Restrictions target high-risk indoor congregate activities and are neutral in effect | Majority: Harvest Rock unlikely to show district court abused discretion; dissent: likely to succeed |
| Whether state’s evidence supports differential treatment | State failed to explain why many secular activities with similar features are less restricted | State relied on Dr. Watt’s declaration that indoor congregate worship elevates transmission risk; plaintiff offered no rebuttal | Majority: reliance on Dr. Watt and lack of contrary evidence means no abuse of discretion |
| Irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest | Loss of First Amendment worship is irreparable; equities favor injunctive relief | State interests in public health outweigh interim relief; precedent counsels deference | Majority: public interest and precedent weigh against injunction; dissent: constitutional injury is irreparable and equities favor church |
| Weight of Supreme Court’s prior denial (South Bay) | South Bay denial is not dispositive here; scheme differs and higher scrutiny warranted | Supreme Court’s denial of emergency relief persuasive and counsels against injunction | Majority: persuaded by Supreme Court’s denial and denies injunction; dissent: South Bay denial not precedential or controlling here |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction factors)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (strict scrutiny when law not neutral or generally applicable)
- South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (Supreme Court denied emergency injunction of California COVID rules)
- Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 140 S. Ct. 2603 (disparate-treatment arguments regarding COVID restrictions on worship)
- In re Dan Farr Prods., 874 F.3d 590 (loss of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable injury)
- Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432 (abuse-of-discretion standard on appeal from denial of preliminary injunction)