California Church Singing Ban

    Over the summer, three churches in northern California challenged the ban on singing in church, put in place to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Calvary Chapel in Ukiah, Calvary Chapel in Fort Bragg, and River of Life Assembly of God Church in Oroville, represented by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), filed for a preliminary injunction in July against California’s singing ban. Governor Gavin Newsom issued an order to ban singing in churches because singing and chanting, “present an increased likelihood for transmission of Covid-19 through contaminated exhaled droplets,” according to state health officials. This ban was thought to be necessary after the CDC, “studied how coronavirus spread from one member to 87% of the singers at a Washington Choir Practice.” However, before the ban on singing, the ACLJ expressed that these churches were following CDC guidelines to combat the spread of the virus by mandatory mask wearing, social distancing, and temperature screenings during all services. The ban on singing and chanting in church did not apply to the large scale protests occurring in California at the time, which Governor Newsom shows an unwavering support for. The Churches believe Governor Newsom’s ban is a direct target against Christians and the way they are allowed to practice their beliefs, as singing is an integral part of worship guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. 

    The Churches argue that the ban on singing and chanting is unconstitutional because it violates their right to free exercise of religion established in the First Amendment. Although the Covid-19 pandemic is a very pressing issue at this time in the United States, the ACLJ asserts that a virus should not suspend any constitutional rights under any circumstances. On the other hand, the state of California and state health officials believe that the singing ban is not a matter of constitutionality, rather a necessary action to help reduce the spread of coronavirus. The state health officials of California suggested other ways to worship that would allow singing or chanting, such as internet streaming where people do not need to congregate in an indoor area. However, the Churches believe that it is their constitutional right to exercise their First Amendment right to determine whether they will congregate together and sing as a type of worship. Under no circumstances will their First Amendment right be infringed upon by the state. The First Amendment clearly states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In the case of the three Churches, they believe their constitutional right to free exercise is in fact being prohibited by Governor Newsom’s ban on singing and chanting, as these are essential elements of worship and practicing their religious beliefs. 

    As this issue continues in California, I believe that the California ban on singing and chanting in churches should be struck down as it infringes upon the Churches’ guaranteed First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Although the Covid-19 pandemic is a serious problem in the country, a suspension of what are guaranteed rights is unconstitutional. This is an important issue to address because if the ban is left standing, there is a potential for a dangerous precedent to be set based on the outcome of this case. If states have the authority to ban or prohibit aspects of the first amendment, such as the free exercise of religion in this case, what is next? A precedent where state governments use power to ban or impede constitutional rights they may disagree with, would be detrimental to the individual freedoms every citizen of the United States holds. 

    The ban on singing and chanting in church also undermines the separation of church and state and the intersection between law and religion. State law cannot supersede federal law, which grants the free exercise of religion in the First Amendment of the Constitution. If Governor Newsom’s ban is allowed, state law would essentially be trumping federal law. The 1940 case Cantwell v State of Connecticut further demonstrates how this ban is unconstitutional. Religious soliciting was argued upon in this case, the state attempting to prohibit Jehovah’s Witnesses from soliciting with pamphlets and other religious books or phonographs. The court rules that states have the power to regulate such soliciting such as time and place, but they do not have the power to infringe upon guaranteed religious freedom of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the case of the church singing ban, the state does not have the constitutional power to institute this ban, which encroaches upon the Churches’ freedom to exercise their religion in any way. 

    Along with a dangerous precedent and lack of acknowledgment to separation of church and state, I do not believe the California ban on singing and chanting is a neutral law. This ban is not applicable to all groups of people, rather it specifically targets churches and their members, infringing upon the way they practice religion. To make this law neutral, Governor Newsom would have to apply the ban of singing and chanting to other gatherings of people, such as the large-scale protests occurring in California, where social distancing is sometimes difficult to achieve, and mask wearing is not always universally practiced. The ACLJ however, described the church members as adhering to CDC guidelines including mask wearing and social distancing. The lack of neutrality of this ban further demonstrates its unconstitutionality. Even amid the coronavirus pandemic, the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion shall not be hindered or infringed upon in any way, and therefore, the California ban on singing and chanting is unconstitutional, and must be overturned.