Cassell v. Snyders, 20-1757

• Decision Date: 08 March 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-1757,20-1757
• Citation: 990 F.3d 539
• Parties: Stephen CASSELL and The Beloved Church, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. David SNYDERS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

990 F.3d 539

Stephen CASSELL and The Beloved Church, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.David SNYDERS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-1757

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued November 12, 2020

Decided March 8, 2021

Peter Breen, Thomas L. Brejcha, Jr., Martin Whittaker, Attorneys, THOMAS MORE SOCIETY, Chicago, IL, Michael McHale, THOMAS MORE SOCIETY, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiffs - Appellants.

Benjamin M. Jacobi, Terence J. Corrigan, Karen L. McNaught, Attorneys, O'HALLORAN, KOSOFF, GEITNER & COOK, LLC, Northbrook, IL, for Defendants - Appellees DAVID SNYDERS and CRAIG BEINTEMA.

Priyanka Gupta, Attorney, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Chicago, IL, for Defendant - Appellee JAY R. PRITZKER.

Kevin M. Casey, Dominick L. Lanzito, Paul O'Grady, Jennifer L. Turiello, Attorneys, PETERSON, JOHNSON & MURRAY - CHICAGO LLC, Chicago, IL, for Defendant - Appellee STEVE SCHAIBLE.

Alexander Joseph Luchenitser, Attorney, AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Alexander Joseph Luchenitser, Attorney, AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, Washington, DC, Jeffrey I. Pasek, Attorney, COZEN O'CONNOR, Philadelphia, PA, for Amicus Curiae JEWISH SOCIAL POLICY ACTION NETWORK.

Before Wood, Hamilton, and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.

Hamilton, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal the May 3, 2020 denial of a preliminary injunction against a now-expired ten-person limit on religious and other gatherings that Illinois imposed to curtail the spread of the coronavirus. The plaintiffs, a Christian church and its pastor, hold weekly in-person worship services attended by approximately eighty people. Pastor Stephen Cassell suspended these services after he received on March 31, 2020 a "Cease and Desist Notice" from the county health department that threatened penalties under Illinois Executive Order 2020-10, issued March 20, 2020, if the church continued to host in-person gatherings of ten or more people. Pastor Cassell and The Beloved Church filed this lawsuit on April 30, 2020. They sought a preliminary injunction to stop Governor Pritzker and Stephenson County officials (Sheriff David Snyders and Health Administrator Craig Beintema) and Lena Police Chief Steve Schaible from enforcing the ten-person limit against the church.

The plaintiffs contend that the ten-person limit on religious gatherings violated their right to exercise their religion under both the First Amendment and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They also allege that the governor's executive order violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and exceeded the governor's powers under the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act and the Illinois Department of Public Health Act.

Executive Order 10 prohibited public gatherings of more than ten people, with limited exceptions for certain essential activities, but not religious gatherings. See Ill. Exec. Order 2020-10 §§ 1.3, 1.5, 1.12 (Mar. 20, 2020). Since that order was issued, the exponential spread of coronavirus has caused a global pandemic that rages on. When Pastor Cassell received the notice on March 31, 2020, Illinois was reporting a seven-day average of 637 new coronavirus cases per day. Illinois Coronavirus Map and Case Count , N.Y. Times (Mar. 31, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/illinois-coronavirus-cases.html. As we write this opinion, Illinois is now reporting thousands of new cases each day. Id. (last visited Mar. 2, 2021). The virus has killed more than 22,000 people in Illinois alone. Id. And across the United States, over 28 million cases and 514,000 deaths have been confirmed. Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count , N.Y. Times, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html?action=click & module=Top%20Stories & pgtype=Homepage (last visited Mar. 2, 2021). The pandemic is expected to continue until vaccines reach a substantial majority of the population.

Much has changed since the church filed this case on April 30, 2020. By the time the district court heard this case, Executive Order 10 had been replaced by Executive Order 2020-32, which still contained the ten-person limit on religious gatherings. But on May 29, months before plaintiffs filed their appellate brief, the governor issued Executive Order 2020-38, which encouraged a ten-person limit on religious gatherings but removed the mandate to that effect. See Ill. Exec. Order 2020-38, ¶ 4(a). Since then, the governor has continued to adjust regulations to manage risk with a series of executive orders that have all expressly exempted religious gatherings from mandatory restrictions. See Ill. Exec. Order 2020-43 (June 26, 2020); Ill. Exec. Order 2020-55 (Sept. 18, 2020); Ill. Exec. Order 2020-73 (Nov. 18, 2020); Ill. Exec. Order 2021-03 (Jan. 19, 2021). The plaintiffs’ complaint challenges the ten-person limit as it stood in April, when it applied to religious gatherings. That's what the district court assessed when it denied a preliminary injunction on May 3, 2020.

We affirm that denial. Intervening authority from the Supreme Court offers plaintiffs a greater prospect for success on the merits of their First Amendment claim than either the district court or we had expected. See Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo , 592 U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 63, 208 L.Ed.2d 206 (2020). Yet recent Supreme Court authority has also indicated that equitable considerations weigh against granting a preliminary injunction at this time, when the prospect of irreparable injury to the plaintiffs is very low. See Danville Christian Academy, Inc. v. Beshear , 592 U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 527, 208 L.Ed.2d 504 (2020). In addition, the interests of people who are not parties to this case ("the public interest" in the preliminary injunction balancing) weigh substantially against injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs’ remaining claims are unlikely to succeed on the merits, at least in federal court. Their federal procedural due process claim was not presented to the district court and appears to have little merit. Plaintiffs’ state-law claims present jurisdictional concerns that cast serious doubt on their ultimate success in federal court. The Eleventh Amendment bars relief against the governor; it may also bar relief against the local defendants. The state-law claims may also be moot as against the local defendants, and most fundamental, all of the state-law claims appear to be poor candidates for a federal court's exercise of its supplemental jurisdiction.

In Part I, we summarize the district court's decision. We explain in Part II the standard for a preliminary injunction and our standard of review and in Part III the balance of the equities on plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim. In Part IV, we address the plaintiffs’ limited prospects for success on their due process and state-law claims, at least in federal court.

I. The District Court's Denial of a Preliminary Injunction

In a swift and thorough opinion, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction because it found that their claims were unlikely to succeed on their merits and that the equitable balance of harms weighed heavily against them. Cassell v. Snyders , 458 F. Supp. 3d 981 (N.D. Ill. 2020). The court found that the plaintiffs’ First Amendment and state-law religious freedom claims were unlikely to prevail because elected officials’ responses to a pandemic deserve great latitude, id. at 993–94, and religious gatherings are not comparable to other activities that were exempted from the ten-person limit, such as grocery shopping. Id. at 996–97, 1000–01. As to the other state-law claims, the court explained that the governor did not appear to have exceeded his statutory emergency authority or violated state procedures for closing premises during a public health crisis. Id. at 1001–03. The court also said that, in any event, the Eleventh Amendment would bar injunctive relief from a federal court under all the plaintiffs’ state-law claims. Id. at 999, citing Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman , 465 U.S. 89, 117, 123 n.34, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (holding that state officials, and sometimes county and local officials, are immune from federal injunctions based on state law).

The district court then explained that the equitable balance of harms weighed "heavily against the ... preliminary injunction that Plaintiffs seek." Id. at 1003. The court stressed that an injunction "would not only risk the lives of the Beloved Church's members, it would also increase the risk of infections among their families, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and surrounding communities." Id . "While Plaintiffs’ interest in holding large, communal in-person worship services is undoubtedly important, it does not outweigh the government's interest in protecting the residents of Illinois from a pandemic." Id .

II. The Preliminary Injunction Standard

A preliminary injunction is " ‘an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it.’ " Orr v. Shicker , 953 F.3d 490, 501 (7th Cir. 2020), quoting Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S. of Am., Inc. , 549 F.3d 1079, 1085 (7th Cir. 2008) ; see generally Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc ., 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunction). "As a threshold matter, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate (1) some likelihood of succeeding on the merits, and (2) that it has ‘no adequate remedy at law’ and will suffer ‘irreparable harm’ if preliminary relief is denied." Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co. , 971 F.2d 6, 11 (7th Cir. 1992), quoting Lawson Products, Inc. v. Avnet, Inc. , 782 F.2d 1429, 1433 (7th Cir. 1986), and Roland Machinery Co. v. Dresser Industries, Inc. , 749 F.2d 380, 386–87 (7th Cir. 1984). If these threshold factors are met, ...