Gateway City Church v. Newsom
| Decision Date | 29 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5:20-cv-08241-EJD |
| Citation | 516 F.Supp.3d 1004 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | GATEWAY CITY CHURCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gavin NEWSOM, et al., Defendants. |
Kevin Trent Snider, Pacific Justice Institute, Sacramento, CA, Sharonrose Cannistraci, Cannistraci Law Firm, Los Gatos, CA, Marlis Debra McAllister, McAllister Law Group, Los Altos, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Todd Grabarsky, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants Gavin Newsom, Acting Director CDPH Sandra Shewry.
Hannah Meredith Kieschnick, Karan Singh Dhadialla, Office of the County Counsel, San Jose, CA, for Defendants SCC Health Officer Sara H. Cody, County of Santa Clara.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Re: Dkt. No. 47
Plaintiffs Gateway City Church, The Home Church, The Spectrum Church, Orchard Community Church, Trinity Bible Church (collectively "Plaintiffs") brought the present motion for a preliminary injunction against Defendants Gavin Newsom, in his official capacity as Governor of California, Sandra Shewry, M.D., in her official capacity as Acting Director of California Public Department of Health (collectively, "State"), the County of Santa Clara, and Sara H. Cody, M.D., in her official capacity as Santa Clara County Health Officer (collectively "County"), and their agents, employees, attorneys, law enforcement, and those acting in concert (altogether, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs seek to restrain enforcement of certain State and County public health orders that prohibit indoor worship services or restrict the number of people permitted in places of worship as part of the State's and County's efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19.
Plaintiffs’ motion requires the Court to balance two competing interests of utmost importance: the public interest in the First Amendment freedom to exercise religion and the public health interest in preventing and protecting against the spread of the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. The stakes are very high; the ever-increasing number of people afflicted by COVID-19 is devastating. The far-reaching effects of this devastation on the public, in turn, makes communities of faith and spiritual well-being evermore vital.
Courts across the country, including the United States Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, have been weighing these competing interests since the onset of the pandemic, and the case law has evolved alongside our understanding of the virus. After careful consideration of recent precedent, as well as the parties’ briefing, evidentiary submissions, and oral arguments, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
The severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus type-2 known as COVID-19 is now the world's deadliest infectious disease. It has killed approximately 430,000 Americans, including nearly 40,000 people in California. 1
Indeed, by some measures, COVID-19 is now the leading cause of death in the United States. See Dkt. No. 52-1, Declaration of Todd Grabarsky (First) In Support Of State Defendants’ Opposition ("Grabarsky Decl."), Exs. 58-59. There is no known cure and only limited treatment options for the disease. Dkt. No. 52-4, Declaration of George Rutherford, MD, In Support Of State Defendants’ Opposition ("Rutherford Decl.") ¶¶ 39-41. New vaccines promise an eventual end to this crisis, however, they are not yet widely available and cases continue to rise. At least 706 new coronavirus deaths and 18,628 new cases were reported in California on January 27, 2021, which will further encumber California's already overburdened health care facilities and intensive care units ("ICUs").2
Although much is still unknown about the virus, there is scientific consensus that COVID-19 is transmitted primarily by respiratory droplets containing virus, which are exhaled when individuals breathe, speak, sing, or chant. Rutherford Decl., ¶¶ 29-34; Dkt. No. 52-3, Declaration of Dr. James Watt, MD, MPH, In Support Of State Defendants’ Opposition ("Watt Decl.") ¶¶ 25–28. It is also widely acknowledged that many people infected with the virus do not experience any symptoms but may nonetheless transmit COVID-19 to others. Id. ¶¶ 30-32; Rutherford Decl. ¶¶ 32-34. Not all exposure to the virus will result in infection, rather, epidemiologists have found that "[v]iral load"—the number of "viable viral particles" to which a person is exposed—determines whether the virus will "overcome the body's defenses and cause a COVID 19 infection." Id. ¶¶ 35-36; see also Watt Decl. ¶¶ 33, 44.
The risk that the virus will transmit between persons depends on a number of factors, which affect the viral load a person could be exposed to. These include: how many people are gathered in a single space (the more people, the more likely it is that one or more people are infectious), the physical distance between those people (the closer they are, the more likely it is that respiratory droplets from one person will reach another person), the amount of time those people are in close proximity (the longer the time, the more potentially infectious droplets there will be), and the amount of ventilation in the space (the more air flow, the more likely it is that infectious droplets will dissipate before reaching another person), among others. Id. ¶¶ 37-46. Transmission risk also increases when infected individuals engage in activities such as speaking, singing, or shouting that increase their breathing and, by extension, exhalations. Id. ¶¶ 45-46; Rutherford Decl. ¶¶ 75, 95-100.
Transmission risk may be reduced, but not eliminated, by precautions such as wearing a face mask over the nose and mouth and maintaining a distance of at least six feet from individuals of other households. Id. ¶ 75; Watt Decl. ¶¶ 47–53. In order to reduce the risk of transmission and stem the spread of COVID-19, a wide variety of restrictions have been imposed at the local, state, and federal level across the country, including the restrictions at issue in this case.
Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on November 23, 2020, followed soon after by an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order. Dkt. Nos. 1, 13. On December 2, 2020, this Court issued an order denying the application for a temporary restraining order without prejudice and setting a status conference to discuss the substantive and procedural impact of similar cases then-pending before the Supreme Court. The relevant cases were resolved before the status conference and the Court then set a schedule to proceed with Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion. The Court also expressed some doubt about Plaintiffs’ standing to challenge past orders which were no longer in effect and permitted Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint and motion focusing solely on the operative State and County orders.
On December 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 40. The Amended Complaint asserts six claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 : (1) violation of the First Amendment freedom of assembly; (2) violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause; (3) violation of the right to equal protection under the First Amendment; (4) violation of the First Amendment freedom of speech; (5) unreasonable seizure of property in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and (6) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment "privileges and immunities" clause. Plaintiffs also assert a seventh claim for declaratory relief. Alongside the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs filed 159 exhibits (Dkt. Nos. 41-46), a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 47, "Motion") and 25 declarations from Plaintiffs’ pastors and other church personnel in support of that motion (Dkt. No. 50).
On December 23, 2020, the State and the County filed separate responses to the Motion. Dkt. No. 52 ("State Opp."); Dkt. No. 53 ("County Opp."). The County attached exhibits A-S, and the State attached exhibits 1-64, many of which overlap with Plaintiffs’ exhibits. Defendants also filed multiple declarations, including the expert declarations of Dr. Watt and Dr. Rutherford, whose qualifications and expertise in epidemiology and public health are undisputed. On December 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 55) accompanied by 5 supplemental declarations and 19 additional exhibits (exhibits 159-175).
Plaintiffs also filed objections to the Declaration of the Health Officer for the County of Santa Clara Sara H. Cody ("Cody Declaration") and the Declaration of Dr. Marc Lipsitch ("Lipsitch Declaration"). Dkt. No. 55-7. Specifically, Plaintiffs objected to Dr. Cody's statements about the relative transmission risks of shopping and attending worship services, and her rejection of Plaintiffs’ categorical assertions that they have not contributed to the spread of COVID-19. See, e.g. , Cody Decl. ¶ 64 (). Plaintiffs also object to both Dr. Cody's and Dr. Lipsitch's statements about Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with county health orders at past indoor worship services. For the reasons stated at the preliminary injunction hearing held January 15, 2021, the Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objections.3
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction specifically seeks to enjoin the State and County's enforcement of four interrelated public health orders.
The California Department of Public Health ("CDPH") Statewide Public Health Officer Order dated August 28, 2020, known as the Blueprint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Polee v. Cent. Contra Costa Transit Auth. (CCCTA)
-
Seaplane Adventures, LLC v. Cnty. of Marin
...out in the FAA guidance.In its response to the order to show cause, Seaplane also relied on Gateway City Church v. Newsom , 516 F.Supp.3d 1004 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2021) (Judge Edward J. Davila). That case did not decide the FAA preemption issue but considered preemption in aviation as poten......
-
Seaplane Adventures, LLC v. Cnty. of Marin
...FAA preemption issue but considered preemption in aviation as potentially analogous to restrictions on places of worship. Seaplane relied on Gateway for the proposition that “the government does not categorically prohibit local governments from imposing public health ordinances on airports;......