453 F.Supp.3d 901
W.D. Ky.2020Background:
- On Fire Christian Center sued Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer and the City of Louisville seeking emergency relief after the Mayor announced that drive‑in church services would not be allowed during the COVID‑19 public‑health orders and threatened police enforcement and license‑plate collection for attendees.
- On Fire proposed a drive‑in Easter service complying with CDC social‑distancing measures (cars parked six feet apart; congregants remain in vehicles; only pastor and a videographer outside at distance).
- On April 11, 2020 the district court entered an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining Louisville from enforcing, attempting to enforce, or threatening to enforce its prohibition on drive‑in services at On Fire; the court set a telephonic preliminary‑injunction hearing for April 14.
- The court found notice impractical given the imminence of Easter and excused posting security for the TRO.
- On the merits the court concluded On Fire demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on Free Exercise and Kentucky RFRA claims, and that the other preliminary‑injunction factors (irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest) favored On Fire.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Louisville’s ban on drive‑in church services is neutral and generally applicable under the Free Exercise Clause | The ban singled out religious drive‑in worship while permitting other drive‑through/parking activities; therefore it is not neutral or generally applicable and must satisfy strict scrutiny | The ban is a neutral public‑health measure aimed at preventing COVID‑19 spread and is justified by emergency public‑health powers | Court: Ban is not neutral/generally applicable; targeting religious conduct triggers strict scrutiny, which Louisville cannot meet on the record |
| Whether Louisville’s measure survives strict scrutiny (compelling interest & least restrictive means) | Even if the interest is compelling, the ban is underinclusive and not narrowly tailored; less restrictive measures (allowing cars to park distanced) are available | Government interest in preventing disease spread is compelling and justifies emergency restrictions on gatherings | Court: Interest compelling but ban is not narrowly tailored; likely to fail strict scrutiny |
| Whether On Fire will suffer irreparable harm absent relief (TRO factors) | Loss of First Amendment freedoms and inability to observe Easter in community constitute irreparable injury | Public‑health harms from permitting gatherings outweigh plaintiffs’ harm | Court: Loss of religious freedom is irreparable; plaintiffs satisfied this TRO factor |
| Whether injunction is in the public interest and equities balance | Allowing a socially distanced drive‑in service poses no greater risk than other permitted activities; protecting religious exercise serves public interest | Enjoining enforcement risks public‑health consequences during a pandemic | Court: On the limited record, public‑health risk from the proposed service was not shown to outweigh the free‑exercise injury; equities/public interest favor TRO |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (recognizes state police‑power authority in epidemics but limits arbitrary or plainly excessive invasions of constitutional rights)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (laws that target religious conduct are not neutral or generally applicable and trigger strict scrutiny)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (factors for preliminary injunctions/TROs include likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (strict‑scrutiny framework for substantial burdens on sincere religious exercise; courts may not judge correctness of religious belief)
- Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017) (Free Exercise protections extend beyond mere inward belief to the right to engage in religious exercise)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods, constitutes irreparable injury)