959 F.3d 938
9th Cir.2020Background
- South Bay United Pentecostal Church (Chula Vista, CA) holds large in-person services; COVID-19 restrictions closed them in March 2020.
- Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-33-20 (Mar. 19, 2020) imposed a stay-at-home baseline; a four-stage Reopening Plan assigned in-person "religious services" to a later Stage 3 while other activities reopened earlier.
- Plaintiffs sued state and local officials seeking emergency relief (TRO and OSC) to permit in-person worship; the district court denied the TRO/OSC and held the plan was a neutral law of general applicability or narrowly tailored for public health.
- Plaintiffs appealed and moved in the Ninth Circuit for an injunction pending appeal; the panel entertained the emergency motion (denying dismissal for lack of jurisdiction) but the majority denied injunctive relief; Judge Collins dissented.
- The appeals court framed the inquiry under the standard for injunctions pending appeal (Winter factors) and debated whether Jacobson’s emergency deference or the ordinary Free Exercise framework (Lukumi) governs review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear emergency appeal | Religious Tech. Ctr. allows interlocutory review where TRO/OSC denial is tantamount to denial of preliminary injunction | Lack of appellate jurisdiction | Court: Jurisdiction exists under Religious Tech. Ctr.; motion to dismiss denied |
| Standard for Free Exercise review during pandemic | Lukumi/ordinary Free Exercise doctrine applies; strict scrutiny if law not neutral/generally applicable | Jacobson-style heightened deference in public-health emergency; courts should defer to executive public-health judgments | Court: Did not accept Jacobson as displacing ordinary Free Exercise review; considered Winter/Lukumi framework in evaluating injunction |
| Neutrality and general applicability of the Reopening Plan | Plan facially and operationally discriminates by categorically placing "religious services" in later stage; not generally applicable | Plan is a neutral, risk-based, generally applicable public-health scheme | Court: Majority concluded appellants failed to show likelihood of success on the merits; dissent (Collins) would find the Plan non-neutral and not generally applicable (would apply strict scrutiny) |
| Irreparable harm and balance of equities/public interest | Loss of First Amendment/free exercise constitutes irreparable harm; equities/public interest favor injunction with mitigation measures | Public health risks and state interest in preventing virus spread outweigh plaintiffs’ interests | Court: Majority found remaining factors do not support injunctive relief; dissent would find irreparable harm and that equities/public interest favor injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1989) (denial of TRO/OSC may be appealable as tantamount to denial of preliminary injunction)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (laws not neutral or not generally applicable trigger strict scrutiny under Free Exercise Clause)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor test for preliminary injunctions)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (upholding public-health police power; cited as authority on emergency measures)
- Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (incorporation of Free Exercise Clause against the states)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable harm)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (religious exemption/Free Exercise analysis and accommodation principles)
- Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, 794 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2015) (rational-basis review applies where regulation is neutral and generally applicable)