Calvary Chapel of Ukiah v. Newsom
| Decision Date | 10 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC,2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC |
| Citation | 524 F.Supp.3d 986 |
| Parties | CALVARY CHAPEL OF UKIAH, a California Non-Profit Corporation; Calvary Chapel of Fort Bragg, a California Non-Profit Corporation; and River of Life Church, a California Non-Profit Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Gavin NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of California; Sonia Angell, M.D., in her official capacity as California Public Health Officer; Noemi Doohan, M.D., in her official capacity as Public Health Officer, Mendocino County; and Ngoc-Phuong Luu, M.D., in her official capacity as Butte County Public Health Officer, M.D., in her official capacity as Butte County Public Health Officer, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Abigail A. Southerland, PHV, Pro Hac Vice, American Center for Law and Justice, Franklin, TN, Edward L. White, III, PHV, Pro Hac Vice, Erik Michael Zimmerman, PHV, Pro Hac Vice, American Center for Law and Justice, Ann Arbor, MI, Mariah Rose Gondeiro, Robert H. Tyler, Tyler & Bursch, LLP, Murrieta, CA, Dean Robert Broyles, National Center for Law & Policy, Escondido, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Lisa Plank, Attorney General of California, San Francisco, CA, Todd Grabarsky, Jonathan Michael Eisenberg, Office of the Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant Gavin Newsom.
Lisa Plank, Attorney General of California, Oakland, CA, Todd Grabarsky, Jonathan Michael Eisenberg, Office of the Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant Sonia Angell.
Christian Meyer Curtis, Office of the Mendocino County Counsel, Ukiah, CA, for Defendant Noemi Dooham.
Bradley J. Stephens, Butte County Counsel, Oroville, CA, for Defendant Robert Bernstein.
Plaintiffs Calvary Chapel of Ukiah, Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg and River of Life Church move for a preliminary injunction. Mot., ECF No. 19. Plaintiffs request the court enjoin California from enforcing a restriction on indoor singing within places of worship, alleging the restriction unconstitutionally discriminates against plaintiffs’ religious activities in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id. at 2, 8.1 Defendants California Governor Gavin Newsom, California Public Health Officer Sandra Shewry, Mendocino County Public Health Officer Noemi Doohan and Butte County Public Health Officer Ngoc-Phuong all are sued in their official capacities; they all oppose the motion. State Defendants’ Opp'n (State Opp'n), ECF No. 33; Mendocino Defendants’ Opp'n (Mendocino Opp'n), ECF No. 31. Butte County joins the State's opposition in its entirety. Butte County Joinder, ECF No. 32. Defendants argue the State's restriction on indoor singing and chanting during worship services, which is essentially coextensive with the defendant counties’ restrictions, constitutes a permissible non-discriminatory exercise of the State's power, justified by public health data and the need to combat the spread of COVID-19. State Opp'n at 25-26; Mendocino Opp'n at 2-3. Plaintiffs’ reply challenges the manner in which the State relies on the public health science in determining indoor singing is dangerous and argues the ban on indoor singing is not evenly applied across comparable activities. Reply, ECF No. 45.
The court held a videoconference hearing on November 6, 2020, with counsel Erik Zimmerman appearing for plaintiffs; counsel Todd Grabarsky appearing for defendants Gavin Newsom, Sonia Angell and Ngoc-Phuong-Luu; and counsel Christian Curtis appearing for defendant Noemi Doohan. At hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel confirmed that plaintiffs’ motion narrowly challenges the State's restrictions on indoor singing in worship services, and not other worship restrictions. Following the hearing, plaintiffs filed a surreply as authorized by the court, responding to defendants’ citation of supplemental authority shortly before the hearing. ECF Nos. 54, 56.
Since the hearing, both parties have filed several notices of supplemental authority, including very recently. See ECF Nos. 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 73, 74. At the court's direction in January 2021, the parties provided supplemental briefing to address the evolving legal landscape at that time. See Order (Jan. 11, 2021), ECF No. 68; Pls.’ Suppl. Brief (Jan. 15, 2021), ECF No. 69; State Suppl. Brief (Jan. 22, 2021), ECF No. 70. After the court ordered that briefing, the Ninth Circuit decided two cases addressing some of the issues raised in this case. See S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 985 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2021) ; Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom, 985 F.3d 771 (9th Cir. 2021). The Supreme Court granted in part an application for injunctive relief in the first of these two cases, South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom , 592 U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 716, 209 L.Ed.2d 22 (2021).
The court has reviewed the parties’ supplemental filings and the most recent controlling decisions carefully, takes notice of any changes to the State's guidance documents as relevant, and has considered the entirety of the record on the pending motion. As explained below, in light of the current controlling precedent and regulatory framework, given the nature of the relief requested here, the court denies the motion for a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs do not dispute that COVID-19 represents a profound public health crisis for California and this country, nor do they disagree with the State's data on infections and deaths. See State Opp'n at 2 (); see also CDC, Covid Data Tracker2 (28.9 million infections, 524,695 deaths); Tracking COVID-19 in CA3 (54,395 deaths in California). Plaintiffs also do not seriously dispute the State's argument that until comprehensive vaccine programs roll out and herd immunity is achieved, the State has a single mechanism to fight the disease: slowing its spread. See State Opp'n at 2-3; Mot. at 17. Plaintiffs do dispute what methods are required to slow the spread. They contend the State's restriction on singing, in effect in some form since July 2020, is not properly supported by public health expertise and in any event overreaches in a way that interferes with their constitutionally protected rights to practice their religion, especially through singing during worship services.
Plaintiff River of Life Church is located in Butte County; plaintiffs Calvary Chapel of Ukiah and Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg are in Mendocino County. First Am. Compl. (FAC) at 2–3, ECF No. 15. Plaintiffs hold weekly worship services that include prayer, song and sermons by a pastor; they believe singing aloud and singing with one another is integral to their faith. Mot. at 13. They claim the State's prohibition on congregational singing "essentially prohibit[s] corporate worship ...." Id. at 13. Each pastor has verified the complaint, FAC at 20–22, and also has submitted a declaration explaining the religious value of congregational worship to himself and his congregants. See Thompson Decl., ECF No. 48; see also Green Decl., ECF No. 49; Les Boek Decl., ECF No. 50.
As noted, plaintiffs’ counsel made clear at hearing: the present challenge attacks only the State's restriction on congregations’ singing indoors. Specifically, plaintiffs assert the restrictions on indoor singing in places of worship violate their (1) free exercise rights, (2) freedom of speech, (3) equal protection rights and (4) rights under the Establishment Clause. Mot. at 14–23. Plaintiffs argue the restriction on indoor singing and chanting is not generally applicable, as it is not applied in "schools, camps, day care centers," "television and film production," or other "secular locations" where singing is a regular occurrence. Id. at 16, 17. Plaintiffs also point to a six-day lag early on in the pandemic in applying indoor chanting restrictions to protest activities, as well as to statements by the Governor supporting political protests as evidence of discriminatory animus against religious organizations. Id. at 16–19.
The State contests all of plaintiff's assertions. The State argues indoor worship services with singing and chanting pose a unique danger to the public due to the manner in which COVID-19 spreads. State Opp'n at 7. The State argues the prohibition on indoor singing is necessary to reduce the spread of infected respiratory droplets, which transmit the virus readily in large quantities when singing takes place indoors. Id. The State also points to its bans on singing and chanting "indoors at protests, schools, and other secular activities," which, it argues, demonstrates religious and secular activities receive the same treatment. Id. at 8.
The court reviews the relevant regulatory history below, beginning with a general overview and then summarizing specific regulations governing singing and chanting, including during worship services.
Since first declaring a State of Emergency on March 4, 2020, California's Governor and public health authorities have enacted a series of generally applicable orders designed to manage and limit the spread of COVID-19. These general orders do not contain restrictions on singing and chanting; those restrictions appear in separate guidance documents discussed below. Depending on the public health landscape at a given time, the general orders have tightened or loosened restrictions based on public health professionals’ advice. See, e.g. , Exec. Order N-33-20,4 Ex. B, ECF No.15-2 (); State Opp'n at 10 & Watt Decl. ¶¶ 67–68, 71–72, ECF No. 39 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial