A Delaware Church and more Covid-19 Restrictions

As we all know by now, the coronavirus and its ties to religion have been quite a controversial topic since the beginning of the pandemic. This particular case takes place in Delaware as Rev. Christopher Allen Bullock filed a lawsuit against Governor Carney’s restrictions in May. He claimed that his restrictions were unconstitutional and discriminatory against his church’s religious practices. However, this was not the view of Governor Carney as one of his representatives stated in a statement, “All of Governor Carney’s actions during this COVID-19 crisis have been focused on protecting lives. COVID doesn’t distinguish between a church, a restaurant, or your living room. Without the right precautions, it will spread. We continue to urge all Delawareans to take this threat seriously heading into the winter” (Delaware Pastor: Governor has Settled Suit Over Virus Orders). 

 

Governor Carney’s restrictions were quite intense and constantly changing. Once the lockdown was imposed, worship services in Delaware were limited to a maximum of 10 people. They once the first round of criticism came about, he altered his restrictions to either having a 10 person limit or having 30% of the fire occupancy for that particular building. The latter option would only be allowed if the churches followed even more requirements and restrictions. According to the article, these restrictions included,  “the use of face masks and gloves and banning person-to-person communion, physical contact during baptisms, and prohibiting the use of choirs, handheld microphones, and holy water receptacles. Churches also were told to deny entry to anyone 65 or older, a restriction not placed on secular businesses” (Delaware Pastor: Governor has Settled Suit Over Virus Orders). These strict restrictions prompted Rev. Christopher Allen Bullock to formulate a lawsuit against Governor Carney, which then resulted in Carney changing his restrictions again. They now stated that worship singers must wear face shields or masks when singing and if they could not comply, they should turn around to face away from the congregation. His next alteration to his restrictions ultimately eliminated the option for worship centers to hold ceremonies if more than 10 people were in attendance and suggested that anyone speaking or singing should do so facing away from the congregation, standing behind a sneeze guard, or standing 13 feet away from the audience. As Governor Carney continued to change his position, again and again, the trial against Rev. Christopher Allen Bullock was scheduled for September. 

 

The trial commenced in September and was ultimately settled. The terms of the settlement require Governor Carney to treat churches and other places of worship neutrally and that the term “essential” would include churches if another shutdown or emergency lockdown occurs. According to Rev. Christopher Allen Bullock’s attorneys, “restrictions that apply only to religious rituals, such as baptism and communion, would be forbidden, as would age-based attendance limits imposed solely on religious worship” (Delaware Pastor: Governor has Settled Suit Over Virus Orders). The state of Delaware also agreed to pay the Rev. Christopher Allen Bullock’s legal fees that totaled to be approximately $157,000. 

 

This case did not go to the United States Supreme Court, but what would happen if it did? One can only speculate what would happen based on precedent set in other cases from the Court. I believe that if a settlement wasn’t reached in this case and it was taken to the United States Supreme Court, they would rule in favor of the state of Delaware. The Supreme Court has recently rejected cases coming from churches located in Nevada and California. In Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Steve Sisolak, Governor of Nevada and in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, the Court voted in a 5 to 4 vote in both cases to reject them. In regards to South Bay United Pentecostal Church’s cases, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment” (Supreme Court, in 5-4 Decision, Rejects Church’s Challenge to Shutdown Order). Ultimately, I think that the Supreme Court would claim that there is a compelling state interest in keeping these restrictions in Delaware in place. The goal of the state is to protect public health and I think that the Supreme Court would recognize that goal as a priority. Even though these restrictions are strict, I believe that is also important to note that the state of Delaware is not telling them that they cannot meet, they are telling them to limit in-person church ceremonies and activities. Many churches have found ways to meet virtually or live stream their services to a larger audience that would typically attend on a normal Sunday without the threat of the coronavirus. I think that if the state was telling them that they could not hold any form of service, then that would be a direct violation of their right to free exercise of religion, while this is currently an indirect burden.