20-5427
6th Cir.May 4, 2020Background
- Kentucky Governor Beshear issued two COVID-19 orders: (1) March 19 order banning “all mass gatherings,” expressly listing “faith-based” events; (2) March 25 order shuttering non–"life-sustaining" organizations and excluding religious organizations from that definition except when providing certain charitable services.
- Maryville Baptist Church held a drive‑in Easter service on April 12; Kentucky State Police issued notices to attendees, recorded license plates, and ordered self‑quarantine notices, asserting criminal violations.
- The Church and its pastor sued, alleging violations of Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (KY RFRA) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First and Fourteenth Amendments; they sought emergency relief (TRO/preliminary injunction).
- The district court denied the TRO; the Church appealed and moved for an injunction pending appeal. The Sixth Circuit treated the district court’s order as effectively denying preliminary relief and considered an expedited stay analysis under Nken.
- The Sixth Circuit concluded the Church was likely to succeed on its KY RFRA and Free‑Exercise claims as applied to drive‑in services, found irreparable harm, and granted a limited injunction pending appeal permitting drive‑in worship if the Church adheres to the public‑health requirements applied to “life‑sustaining” entities; the court declined to enjoin the ban on in‑person services at this time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a stay/injunction pending appeal should issue | Maryville: TRO/preliminary relief needed to allow drive‑in (and in‑person) worship while appeal proceeds | Beshear: public‑health orders necessary; no carve‑out for worship; injunction would harm public health | Granted in part: injunction pending appeal limited to drive‑in services that follow life‑sustaining public‑health rules; in‑person services not enjoined |
| Whether KY RFRA is violated (substantial burden/least restrictive means) | Maryville: orders substantially burden sincere worship and are not least restrictive because comparable secular activities are permitted | Beshear: measures necessary and appropriate to prevent spread of COVID‑19; apply generally | Likely success for Maryville as to drive‑in services: court finds substantial burden and that orders are not narrowly tailored/least restrictive means |
| Whether the Free Exercise Clause is violated (general applicability/discrimination) | Maryville: orders discriminate by exempting comparable secular activity and singling out faith‑based gatherings | Beshear: orders are neutral and generally applicable; restrictions are applied across the board | Likely success for Maryville as to drive‑in services: court treats exceptions for secular activities as evidence the orders are not generally applicable and must survive strict scrutiny, which they do not |
| Equitable factors: irreparable harm, harm to others, public interest | Maryville: inability to worship in person or drive‑in inflicts irreparable spiritual and associational harm; public interest favors religious liberty | Beshear: public health and safety weigh against injunction | Court finds irreparable harm and that limited injunction (drive‑in with precautions) balances equities and public interest; broader relief (in‑person) deferred |
Key Cases Cited
- Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981) (interlocutory appeals of injunction‑like orders can be reviewed)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay‑pending‑appeal factors)
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws and Free Exercise standard)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (laws that target religion require strict scrutiny)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (strict scrutiny under RFRA/RFRA‑type laws)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (state authority to protect public health in emergencies)
- Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (state police power limits on religious conduct to protect public welfare)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015) (strict scrutiny and least restrictive means under RFRA context)
- Ward v. Polite, 667 F.3d 727 (6th Cir. 2012) (exception‑ridden policies undermine general applicability and trigger strict scrutiny)
- Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2001) (irreparable harm in First Amendment preliminary injunction analysis)