California Supreme Court rules against Immanuel Schools bid to allow in-person classes
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday denied an attempt by Immanuel Schools of Reedley to allow in-person teaching on their campus, despite a Fresno County health order against it.
The school’s administration and parents have openly challenged Fresno County’s decision to require schools to operate by remote learning until the county can stay off the state’s COVID-19 monitoring list for 14 consecutive days.
Officials and parents at the private faith-based school have fought the order, arguing in-person learning is best for students and saying that denying children that right is unconstitutional.
They filed a writ of mandate with the California Supreme Court to try and force Gov. Newsom and state health officials to allow students back into their classrooms. Part of their argument was that the state’s pandemic policies were inconsistent and confusing.
The court did not issue a formal ruling, opting instead to simply post on its website that it was denying the writ.
School officials could be reached for comment Wednesday. But the Southern California law firm representing Immanuel and several other schools — including Clovis Christian Schools — said the legal fight is far from over.
“This court entry has no effect of law. It simply means that we will have to start the litigation by filing our claims in the superior courts because the court is not willing to permit this case to skip the lower courts,” said Robert Tyler, partner in Tyler & Bursch. “Once we proceed through the normal process, we believe we will still be victorious in the end.”
Still unclear is what happens to Immanuel’s students and whether the school will have to close. That decision could be decided by Fresno County Superior Court Judge D. Tyler Tharpe on Sept. 15 when he hears the county Department of Public Health’s request for a preliminary injunction against Immanuel.
The county tried to force the school to shut down on Aug. 25 by filing a motion for a temporary injunction. But Tharpe ruled against the county, saying it did not provide enough proof of irreparable harm — one of the keystones for granting such a motion.
The hearing for a preliminary injunction allows both sides to present a more thorough case.
This story was originally published September 9, 2020 at 4:07 PM.
