992 F.3d 916
9th Cir.2021Background:
- Appellants sought an emergency injunction pending appeal after the district court denied a preliminary injunction challenging California’s COVID-19 "gatherings" rules. The Ninth Circuit majority denied the emergency motion.
- California guidance limited private indoor/outdoor gatherings to three households, prohibited indoor gatherings in Tier 1, restricted singing/chanting indoors, and applied capacity and safety rules to houses of worship and many businesses.
- Plaintiffs: Pastor Jeremy Wong and Karen Busch (in-home Bible studies/worship); Ritesh Tandon and Terry & Carolyn Gannon (political campaign/forum activities); several business owners (challenging capacity and sector rules).
- District court held the gathering rules were neutral, generally applicable, and rationally related to public-health interests (or would satisfy strict scrutiny); it denied preliminary relief.
- Ninth Circuit majority: applied Winter factors, concluded plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success on the merits (free exercise, due process, equal protection) and denied injunction; Judge Bumatay dissented in part, arguing free-exercise disparity and would enjoin as to in-home religious gatherings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free Exercise — in-home religious gatherings | CA’s three-household limit burdens religious exercise and is underinclusive compared to exemptions for businesses and public gatherings; strict scrutiny should apply | The rule is facially neutral and generally applicable as to private in-home gatherings; comparable secular conduct are other private gatherings, so rational-basis review applies | Majority: Not likely to succeed; rule is neutral and generally applicable as applied to private homes -> rational basis; injunction denied. Dissent: would apply strict scrutiny and grant injunction for in-home worship. |
| Free Speech/Assembly — political events (campaigns, forums) | Restrictions prevent in-person campaign events/meetings | State guidance permits many outdoor political rallies and does not apply gatherings rules to some political activities | Court: Denied as unnecessary/moot — district court findings and record indicate the State’s rules do not bar the political activities at issue. |
| Due Process / Equal Protection — business owners | Capacity limits and sector rules unduly burden commerce and property interests; unequal treatment of businesses | Business interests are not a fundamental right and owners are not a suspect class; rational basis applies | Court: Likelihood of success not shown; rational-basis review appropriate; claims fail at this stage. |
| Emergency injunction standard (preliminary injunction on appeal) | Plaintiffs: Winter factors satisfied (likely success, irreparable harm, equities, public interest) | State: Extraordinary remedy not warranted; plaintiffs fail to show likelihood of success or irreparable harm sufficient to justify injunction | Court: Plaintiffs failed the threshold (likelihood of success); Winter factors not met; emergency injunction denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary-injunction standard; injunctive relief is extraordinary)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (free-exercise neutrality and general applicability test)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (strict scrutiny where regulations single out or disfavor houses of worship)
- South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 716 (2021) (enjoining California’s categorical ban on indoor worship in Tier 1)
- Williamson v. Lee Optical, 348 U.S. 483 (1955) (rational-basis review for economic regulation)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable harm)