Some California churches said on Saturday that they planned to reopen their doors this weekend after the United States Supreme Court lifted the state ban on closed religious services during the pandemic, ruling that Governor Gavin Newsom’s strict orders appear to violate the protection of Constitution of the free exercise of religion.
Bishop Arthur Hodges, senior pastor of the South Bay United Pentecostal Church in the San Diego suburb of Chula Vista, called the decision “a great victory.”
“We are thrilled and excited to be returning to church without the legal threat of fines or imprisonment,” said Hodges in a television interview broadcast by Fox 5. “And it opens churches across the state of California. So this is a victory for every church, every house of worship and every individual of faith who wants to come to your house of worship this Sunday. “
He said the church will hold internal services this weekend. He had previously offered online services, but they were not a suitable substitute, he said, comparing them to a virtual fire or a telehealth remedy.
“Online can only go so far,” he said. “It doesn’t really satisfy the person of faith who needs his church.”
South Bay United Pentecostal was one of two churches that challenged the state’s ban in separate lawsuits. The other, Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena, said it would also hold internal services on Sunday.
“Although we have been criticized by some members of the community, we remain firm that the fruit of meeting in person lies in the spiritual, emotional and physical healing that worshiping the Lord Jesus Christ has brought to so many around the world,” Ché Ahn, the senior pastor church, said in a statement.
He said the Church decided to challenge the ban after it was pointed out by “confused California decrees” that give “essential first-class preferences for abortion clinics, marijuana dispensaries and liquor stores.”
“While it is one thing to lock on data, it is an entirely different reason to allow some groups a right that is denied to others,” he said.
Governor Newsom’s office said on Saturday it would publish the revised guidelines for internal church services.
“We will continue to apply the restrictions that the Supreme Court left in place and, after reviewing the decision, we will issue revised guidelines for religious services to continue to protect the lives of Californians,” said Daniel Lopez, Newsom’s press secretary, in a statement .
The judges, in a 6-3 ruling, granted an appeal on Friday night from South Bay United, which repeatedly contested state restrictions on religious services, including a ban on singing and singing. The decision overturned the decisions of federal judges in San Diego and San Bernardino and the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which upheld state orders despite previous warnings from the higher court.
But the higher court said the state could limit attendance at 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 counties except sparsely populated ones.
The six conservative judges mostly differed, but agreed that California had chosen churches for unfair treatment.
“Since the arrival of COVID-19, California has openly imposed stricter regulations on religious institutions than on many companies.” Judge Neil M. Gorsuch wrote in one of three competing opinions. “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 staying in shopping malls, beauty salons or bus terminals. “
Gorsuch, along with judges Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. voted to lift all restrictions, including participation and singing limits.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett said she was not convinced that the singing ban should be lifted. The state argued that singing in a group at home will spread the airborne virus, and Barrett said the churches were charged with “establishing their right to relief from the singing ban. In my opinion, they did not carry that burden – at least not in this record, ”she wrote. Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed with her.
In May, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. cast an important vote on a 5-4 decision to reject an initial challenge to California’s restrictions on religious services. He then said he believed in giving in to state officials who were dealing with the pandemic. But he wrote on Friday that he could not accept “California’s current determination that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero. … Deference, although wide, has its limits. “
The state’s ban on closed services has been challenged in separate cases by the South Bay United Pentecostal Church and the Harvest Rock Church, 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. He said 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. The state also argued that churches were free to hold open-air services.
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. “
Both sides of the case differ as to 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.