In May of 2020, the Calvary Chapel of Bangor, Maine sued the Governor of Maine for COVID-19 restrictions. Prior to the lawsuit, Governor Janet Mills enacted an executive order placing restrictions on the size of indoor gatherings to less than 10 people. As a result, religious places of worship like Calvary Chapel could not hold their typical indoor religious services.
Calvary Chapel claimed that this executive order violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. As such, they appealed the case to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and had their arguments heard last Wednesday. Although such restrictions have since been lifted and gatherings are allowed up to 50 people, the Calvary Chapel wants the Court to make a decision on their behalf in the case that the Governor reinstates those same restrictions due to a future coronavirus case surge.
The issue in question is whether or not Governor Mill’s executive order violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as well as whether Calvary Chapel should be granted a temporary restraining order allowing the church to be free from these restrictions should the Governor reenact those restrictions in an event of another surge in cases.
This issue is extremely critical in the present day due to the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic. In times of national safety, the role of local governments is critical in helping reduce the number of cases in the country and slowing the spread. I strongly believe that the First Court of Appeals should not grant the Calvary Chapel an exemption to the restrictions, should they arise again, and that the executive order is constitutional. The executive order established by Mills is a neutral law as it is not targeted at preventing religious worship. The overall compelling state interest of her executive order is greater than the burden it places on religious institutions. The overall well being of society is threatened if the court decides to make a decision that puts religious personal desires over the health of its citizens. Mill’s executive order does not prevent any individual from worshipping a specific religion nor does it prevent the individual from worshipping on their own.
If the judges on the First Circuit Court of Appeals were to find in favor of the Calvary Chapel and find Governor Mill’s executive order unconstitutional, it would set a dangerous precedent for cases regarding the law and religions. The decision to side with the Calvary Chapel would go against the established role of religion in government. Religion, while being allowed to be freely exercised, should not be affecting the job of the government to protect its individual citizens. Holding in-person religious services would put not only the individual members at risk but could threaten to spread the infection much more rapidly and to more people. This is an important legal consideration for the future as the decisions made regarding the COVID pandemic today will affect future decisions for any possible future health crises.
Similarly to the case of Calvary Chapel, a case was presented in front of a federal court in Kansas regarding the right of churches to hold in-person religious services. Though the court in that case did not extend the rights, they made a dangerous decision by granting the church in Kansas an exemption to the COVID-19 restriction. This goes against prior holdings of the Supreme Court.
The precedents established by prior legal cases only further the idea that Governor Mill’s executive order is constitutional and that Calvary Chapel should not be given a religious exemption. If we consider the case of Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that a federal law prohibiting polygamy did not violate the free exercise clause and they did not grant Reynolds an exception. One of the most significant reasons for holding in Reynolds v. United States was that an individual cannot avoid following a law due to their religion. Furthermore, the compelling state interest of the law significantly outweighed the religious burden on Reynolds. If we take those applications to the case of Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Janet Mills, then the Court has no real justification to side with the plaintiff. An individual, or a religious place of worship in this case, cannot avoid following a law due to their religion and the compelling state interest of COVID-19 safety precautions during a pandemic significantly outweigh the religious burden of holding in-person worship services. Individuals still have the right and the ability to worship, just not in gatherings of more than 10 people.
Though the judges of the First Circuit are hesitant to make a final ruling on this case, they have indicated that if they did, they would find in favor of Governor Mills. I believe that this would be the correct decision on the part of the judges. If the court decided against Mills, it would set a dangerous legal precedent placing religious practices as more important than the safety and well-being of the citizens.
I would have to agree with your opinion on this case, Sophie. In the current pandemic, compelling state interest to protect all citizens is extremely prevalent as the virus spreads easily and rapidly among gatherings of people. In the case I presented recently regarding the church singing ban I argued in favor of the members of the church, believing their right to free exercise was being infringed upon by the singing and chanting ban. However, the circumstances differ between these two cases. In the church singing ban case, members were following social distancing and mask wearing guidelines emphasized by the cdc, whereas there was no evidence presented in the Calvary Chapel of Bangor case that suggests members were even attempting to mitigate the spread of the virus. For this reason I would agree that the Calvary Chapel of Bangor's First Amendment rights were not being infringed upon because the restriction put in place seems to be a neutral law. Larger than ten person gatherings anywhere was prohibited, not just in churches. This again differs from the case of the three Northern California churches where the ban was specifically targeting churches. I believe the state interest in protecting all citizens, as well as the neutrality of the law in this case, makes the restrictions constitutional and not an infringement of first amendment rights.
ReplyDelete