The Supreme Court lifted California’s ban on closed religious services during Friday’s pandemic, ruling that Governor Gavin Newsom’s strict orders violate the Constitution’s protection for the free exercise of religion.
The judges, in a 6-3 ruling, granted an appeal from a church in southern San Diego, which repeatedly contested the state’s restrictions on religious services, including a ban on singing and singing. The decision overturned decisions by federal judges in San Diego and San Bernardino, and by the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco, which upheld state orders, despite previous warnings from the higher court.
But most said the state could limit attendance to closed services to 25% of the building’s capacity, and singing and chanting could also be restricted.
California imposed “the most extreme restriction on worship in the country,” the court told the Becket Fund for Religious Freedom. While several states set limits on attendance at religious services, the group said, California is “the only state to ban indoor worship” in all but the sparsely populated counties.
Most judges differed, but agreed that California had chosen churches for unfair treatment.
“California is concerned about the fact that worship unites people for a long time. However, California does not limit its citizens to entering and leaving other establishments; no one is prevented from lingering in shopping malls, beauty salons or bus terminals, ”wrote judge Neil M. Gorsuch in one of three competing opinions.
The state’s ban on closed services was challenged in separate lawsuits by the South Bay United Pentecostal Church in the San Diego suburb of Chula Vista and the Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena, and Friday’s order applies directly to them. But its legal logic would block the application of a similar ban in other churches.
The court’s three liberals – Judges Elena Kagan, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor – disagreed.
“The judges in this court are not scientists. We don’t even know much about public health policy. Even today, the court replaces expert judgments on how to respond to a violent pandemic, ”wrote Kagan. “The court orders California to ease its restrictions on public meetings by making a special exception for religious services.”
Two months ago, judges warned Newsom and the 9th Circuit that the state’s ban on indoor religious services may have gone too far.
On the eve of the Thanksgiving holiday, the Supreme Court overturned part of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s COVID-19 rules, which limited meetings at places of worship to 25 people in some neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens, where the virus it was spreading rapidly. State rules “isolate houses of worship for especially harsh treatment” compared to retail stores, the court said in Roman Catholic Diocese vs. Cuomo.
Eight days later, the judges granted an appeal from California churches and asked federal judges to reconsider their decisions that upheld Newsom’s ban on closed religious services in all densely populated counties in the state. Judges “vacated” or overturned those decisions based on their decision in the New York case.
But two district judges and the 9th Circuit Court confirmed the state’s restrictions again in late January. They said California was facing a sharp increase in COVID-19 cases and agreed with the state that worshipers in closed religious cults posed “an exceptionally high risk” of spreading the virus because people stayed together for an hour or more.
On the other hand, “customers usually intend to get in and out of supermarkets and retail stores as quickly as possible,” said the 9th Circuit.
Church lawyers urged the Supreme Court to grant an emergency appeal and lift state restrictions on religious services. They cited a dissent from one of the oldest 9th Circuit conservatives.
“A simple and straightforward application of these control cases forces what should be the obvious result here: California’s exceptionally severe restrictions on religious worship services – including its total ban against home worship in almost the entire state – are unconstitutional and should be banned, ”wrote Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain in Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom.
“California is the only state in the country that imposes such a ban,” he said, “However, in exactly the same places where indoor worship is prohibited, California still allows a wide range of secular facilities to open inside the home. , including (to name just a few): retail stores, shopping centers, factories, food processing plants, warehouses, transportation facilities, daycare centers, colleges, libraries, professional sports facilities and movie studios. “
The two sides in the case differ over the current situation in Los Angeles County. Church lawyers told the court that, in late December, Los Angeles County said it would not apply restrictions on religious services, citing court decisions. But state lawyers said the county had no authority to waive state rules.