985 F.3d 771
9th Cir.2021Background
- Harvest Rock Church sought an injunction pending appeal challenging California’s COVID-19 restrictions on indoor worship under the State’s "Blueprint for a Safer Economy" and a December 3 Stay‑at‑Home Order.
- Ninth Circuit panel (O’Scannlain, Rawlinson, Christen) granted the emergency motion in part and denied it in part, citing the court’s recent South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom decision.
- The injunction enjoined enforcement of fixed numeric attendance caps for indoor worship: the 100‑person cap in Tier 2 and the 200‑person cap in Tier 3, as to Harvest Rock and its member churches, pending appeal.
- The court declined to enjoin (and allowed enforcement of) Tier 1 total indoor‑worship prohibitions, attendance limits tied to a percentage of fire‑code capacity, and restrictions on singing/chanting.
- Judge O’Scannlain wrote a special concurrence arguing the court should have enjoined California’s more severe measures (including near‑statewide indoor bans), applying strict scrutiny under Roman Catholic Diocese and Calvary Chapel; Judge Christen separately explained why Harvest Rock’s motion aligned with South Bay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fixed numeric attendance caps on indoor worship (100 in Tier 2; 200 in Tier 3) violate the Free Exercise Clause | Numeric caps discriminate against religion and are not the least restrictive means; strict scrutiny required | Caps are neutral, aimed at public health, and necessary to curb COVID‑19 | Court enjoined enforcement of the fixed 100 and 200 person caps pending appeal (granted in part) |
| Whether California’s Tier 1 total ban on indoor worship and the Regional Stay‑at‑Home Order must be enjoined | Total ban is not narrowly tailored; less restrictive measures exist | Total ban serves compelling public‑health interests and is necessary in high‑risk conditions | Court denied injunctive relief as to Tier 1 total prohibition and the Stay‑at‑Home Order (not enjoined) |
| Whether percentage‑of‑capacity limits tied to fire‑code occupancy are unlawful | Percentage limits can still be applied in a discriminatory way and may burden worship | Percentage limits are a neutral, adjustable risk‑mitigation tool | Court declined to enjoin percentage‑based capacity limits (allowed enforcement) |
| Whether restrictions on singing/chanting at indoor services are permissible | Singing/chanting restrictions unduly target religious practice and are not least restrictive | Restrictions address aerosol transmission risk and are tailored to health concerns | Court declined to enjoin restrictions on singing/chanting (allowed enforcement) |
Key Cases Cited
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (per curiam) (fixed numerical caps on worship held too severe and less restrictive measures available)
- Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 982 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2020) (50‑person cap held insufficiently tailored; strict scrutiny applies to burdens on worship)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo, 983 F.3d 620 (2d Cir. 2020) (upholding injunctive relief where less restrictive, constitutional alternatives exist)