Way back in June of 2021, the nonprofit news site Cal Matters reported that California churches were already winning their legal battles over COVID-19 shut-downs and restrictions, with settlements including legal bills of $1.6 million for South Bay United Episcopal Church and $550,000 for Catholic priest Father Trevor Burfiltt. The settlements were inspired by the fact that in February 2021, the US Supreme Court had struck down the state’s indoor worship ban.

Calvary Chapel and Pastor McClure Sued for Holding Services

Now, on August 15, 2022 a three-judge panel of the Sixth District Court of Appeal for California ruled in favor of the non-denominational Calvary Chapel in San Jose. In 2020, California and Santa Clara County issued COVID-19-related public health orders limiting indoor gatherings and mandating face masks, among other things. Calvary Chapel and Pastor McClure refused to follow these rules and continued to minister to their congregation as their faith dictated. The recent winning opinion covers three consolidated cases, all involving Calvary Chapel and pastor McClure as lead defendants. The August 2022 Appeals Court reversed restraining orders on the church as well as cancelling over $200,000 in contempt of court fines which the lower court had levied. But the church’s legal saga is not over yet, because there are still $2.8 million in fines at issue in Federal court proceedings, separate from the state court contempt penalties.  Attorneys for the church and pastor include the non-profit Advocates for Faith & Freedom, who issued a press release on August 16 about this case.

Injunctions and Fines “Void and Unenforceable”

According to the Sixth District panel: “For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are facially unconstitutional pursuant to the recent guidance of the United States Supreme Court regarding the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion in the context of public health orders that impact religious practice (see, e.g., Tandon v. Newsom (2021) 593 U.S. __ [141 S. Ct. 1294] (Tandon).) As the underlying orders which Calvary Chapel violated are void and unenforceable, we will annul the orders of contempt in their entirety and reverse the orders to pay monetary sanctions.”

“We Expect Complete Victory in the End”

According to the Advocates, separately from the contempt fines and injunctions, Santa Clara County “continues to persecute the church in seeking to enforce approximately $2.8 million in fines that it unilaterally levied against the church for defying the county health orders. This part of the case continues to be litigated in federal court.” Advocates attorney Mariah Gondeiro offered, “the state Court of Appeal ruling should foreshadow the expected outcome in federal court. We expect complete victory in the end.”  

Supreme Court Stands Up for Churches

According to the Appeals court, Calvary Chapel violated a myriad of injunctions and rules during the pandemic including social distancing rules, worship bans, masking and singing rules, and also capacity limits. Yet, citing recent Supreme Court decisions including Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom (2021) 592 U.S._ [141 S. Ct. 1289] (Harvest Rock II), the Appellate panel found strong support for the church given that the Supreme Court had enjoined the government from prohibiting indoor worship, while allowing it to impose a 25% capacity limit.

Different Capacity Limits

The Appellate panel says that taken together, our Supreme Court rulings mean that, “health orders placing capacity limitations on indoor public gatherings that have the effect of restricting indoor worship services also are unlikely to satisfy strict scrutiny review under the Free Exercise Clause where the same capacity limitations do not apply to all types of indoor secular activity, notwithstanding that secular indoor gatherings are also restricted.”

Protection for Religion

The Appellate panel notes that the government does not dispute that the capacity limits on Calvary did not apply equally to “secular bus stations, airports, grocery stores, restaurants, office buildings, and retail stores.” But the Supreme Court has said “Where the government permits other activities to proceed with precautions, it must show that the religious exercise at issue is more dangerous than those activities even when the same precautions are applied. Otherwise, precautions that suffice for other activities suffice for religious exercise too.”