California’s ban on indoor worship upheld, but future caps on church services in limbo
A federal appeals panel has denied a Southern California church’s request to overturn the state’s coronavirus restrictions barring worship services indoors.
But the three-judge decision left the door open for addressing Gov. Gavin Newsom administration’s cap on attendance if a county is in a less-restrictive COVID-19 tier.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled against South Bay United Pentecostal Church of Chula Vista over public health orders that restrict religious services from being held inside when COVID-19 infection and hospitalization rates are surging.
While the panel agreed the San Diego-area church is suffering “irreparable harm,” the judges believed California’s rules to curb the spread of the virus did not harshly limit First Amendment rights. The judges said the ban on indoor service is directly tied to the state’s effects to curb the spread of COVID-19, which has killed nearly 37,000 Californians and infected more than 3 million.
As of Saturday, the number of residents hospitalized with COVID-19 was 18,442, with 4,534 people in intensive care. The volume of hospitalizations led to the latest stay-at-home orders for several parts of the state, but restrictions on indoor church services has been in place since March.
Newsom and the state have faced multiple lawsuits over restrictions on gatherings, church services, restaurant dining and other limits on activities aimed at curbing the continued spread of COVID-19.
Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, writing the court’s opinion, said: “We are mindful that ‘even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.’ ... But we do not think this is what California has done.”
South Bay had appealed the original denial by U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant twice and were previously denied an emergency injunction from the U.S. Supreme Court in May. Lawyers for the church have maintained that places of worship are essential and should be allowed to operate like other sectors that remain open, such as supermarkets.
In arguments Jan. 15, California’s attorneys said the current restrictions allow for unlimited attendance at outdoor services.
“Although South Bay may not be able to hold indoor worship services, California has left open other avenues for worship that pose substantially less risk for further spread of COVID-19,” the panel wrote.
The church is in the Southern California region, where ICU capacity has been at or near 0% for a month. The court sided with California, saying South Bay had not shown that the state’s health orders created “disparate treatment” as other indoor activities like dining had been halted.
But the 50-page ruling offers a caveat that could force Newsom’s hand: Hard attendance limits during worship services could be struck down.
Lawyers for South Bay echoed a majority opinion by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in December struck down New York rules that limited attendance at worship services.
This ruling was hailed by religious freedom advocates as a huge victory in the fight against COVID-19 lockdowns, and energized churches in California to react against their state’s restrictions.
The panel, citing the case, believed the church would likely succeed in its claim that the state’s 100- and 200-person attendance caps were unconstitutional.
Currently in California, indoor worship services are banned in all purple-tiered counties — those deemed to be at widespread risk of coronavirus transmission. This tier accounts for the vast majority of the state. Just four counties are in less-restrictive tiers.
In red-tiered counties, worship may be held indoors, but with a limit to 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer. In orange-tiered counties, indoor services are limited to 50% or 200 people. The least restrictive tier, yellow, which applies to no counties as of now, limits indoor services to 50%.
In November, the Supreme Court struck down New York state’s rules that limited in-person attendance at houses of worship, declaring it was unconstitutional, though with much lower allowable numbers.
In May, the court declined to issue an injunction in South Bay’s suit, voting 5-4 to uphold rules that, at the time, allowed indoor services but limited attendance to 100 people or 25% capacity, whichever was smaller.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with Newsom, said the governor’s rules were allowable in part because churches weren’t being singled out for strict regulation.
But that was before President Donald Trump’s newest appointee joined the court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the swing vote in New York’s case. While that case was more restrictive — in some cases, attendance was limited to just 10 people — the appeals court in its ruling Friday framed a larger question about caps.
“Whereas the state has submitted substantial evidence as to why indoor worship is unsafe at any level in counties where COVID-19 is ‘widespread’ and ICU capacity is non-existent, we cannot find record evidence to support its assertion that the 100-person cap in Tier 2 and 200-person cap in Tier 3 are necessary to achieve its goal in further slowing community spread,” the court wrote. “And while 100 or 200 people could overwhelm a small chapel, a large church the size of South Bay could easily implement social distancing with much higher numbers.”
The judges sent the matter back to the lower court to consider the attendance caps.
This story was originally published January 23, 2021 at 2:37 PM with the headline "California’s ban on indoor worship upheld, but future caps on church services in limbo."
