990 F.3d 539
7th Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiffs: The Beloved Church and Pastor Stephen Cassell, who normally hold ~80-person weekly in-person worship services; Pastor Cassell suspended services after receiving a March 31, 2020 Cease-and-Desist notice under Illinois Executive Order 2020-10 (ten-person limit).
- Procedural posture: Plaintiffs filed suit April 30, 2020 and sought a preliminary injunction against Governor Pritzker and local officials; the district court denied the injunction on May 3, 2020. Seventh Circuit AFFIRMED.
- Intervening developments: Illinois replaced the mandatory ten-person limit with guidance for religious gatherings on May 29, 2020 and subsequent executive orders have expressly exempted religious gatherings from mandatory caps.
- Constitutional claim: Plaintiffs argued the ten-person limit violated the Free Exercise Clause (and Illinois RFRA); the Seventh Circuit recognized that Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo makes plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim more plausible than earlier precedent suggested.
- Equity and public-interest ruling: The court held that, despite the strengthened likelihood-of-success under recent Supreme Court authority, equitable considerations (order expired, minimal current threat, public-health risks) weigh heavily against a preliminary injunction.
- State-law and procedural issues: Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim was forfeited; state-law claims face Eleventh Amendment, mootness, and supplemental-jurisdiction obstacles that make success in federal court unlikely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a preliminary injunction should bar enforcement of the 10-person limit as violating the Free Exercise Clause | The 10-person cap singled out religious gatherings and therefore burdens free exercise; injunctive relief required to prevent irreparable First Amendment harm | The restriction was a neutral public-health measure; plaintiffs face only a threatened enforcement of an order that has been adjusted; public-health interests outweigh plaintiffs’ harms | Denied. Although Roman Catholic Diocese increases plaintiffs’ likelihood on the merits, the expired order and low risk of renewed enforcement plus public-health harms make emergency injunctive relief inappropriate |
| Whether defendants violated procedural due process by threatening to close the church without statutorily prescribed hearings | Plaintiffs say state actors ignored Illinois Department of Public Health procedures, depriving them of procedural protections | Defendants contend plaintiffs did not raise a federal procedural-due-process claim below and that statutory procedures were followed or not constitutionally implicated | Claim forfeited on appeal and unlikely to succeed; plaintiffs did not present procedural-due-process theory in district court |
| Whether plaintiffs’ state-law claims (Illinois RFRA; governor exceeded emergency powers) can succeed in federal court | Plaintiffs invoke Illinois RFRA (strict scrutiny) and argue the governor exceeded statutory emergency authority | Defendants argue Eleventh Amendment bars federal injunctive relief on state-law claims and that state courts should resolve complex state-law questions | Unlikely to succeed in federal court: Eleventh Amendment immunity, prudential concerns, and novel/state-specific issues counsel against federal resolution |
| Whether federal court should exercise jurisdiction / grant relief against local officials (mootness, Eleventh Amendment, supplemental jurisdiction) | Plaintiffs seek injunction against local officials as enforcers of the order | Defendants note the governor abandoned the restriction, local actors disavow enforcement, Eleventh Amendment and prudential concerns limit federal remedies | Court found substantial doubt: local defendants may be immune or moot; district court should consider abstention/declining supplemental jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (Supreme Court made strict scrutiny applicable where COVID restrictions treated religious services less favorably than comparable secular activities)
- Danville Christian Academy v. Beshear, 141 S. Ct. 527 (2020) (Supreme Court denied emergency relief where the challenged order was expiring, undermining need for injunction)
- Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, 962 F.3d 341 (7th Cir. 2020) (Seventh Circuit earlier upheld Illinois COVID restrictions against Free Exercise challenge)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (governs preliminary injunction standard: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
- Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment bars federal injunctions against state officials on the basis of state law)
- Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (standing requires a concrete and imminent injury; speculative chains of enforcement may defeat standing)