During the beginning months of the COVID-19 pandemic, groups and organizations of all different purposes halted in-person gatherings across the globe to avoid worsening the public health crisis. The mayor of the District of Columbia, Muriel Bowser, announced an order to limit all in-person non-essential business and large gatherings on March 24, 2020, to go into effect the following day. The Capitol Hill Baptist Church, located in Washington, D.C., voluntarily canceled in-person services prior to this order, on March 15, 2020. They wanted to take precautions to protect their congregation and surrounding communities as soon as possible, prior to the rapid spread of COVID-19 in the United States.
The Capitol Hill Baptist Church was established 142 years ago and, until the COVID-19 pandemic, religious services were only stopped once for three weeks during the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918. In June of 2020, three months after stopping services, the Capitol Hill Baptist Church filed for a waiver of the mayor’s order to resume their services outdoors, with policies to wear masks and socially distance, yet they never received a response.
After 42 states lifted restrictions on large gatherings, including religious services, the Capitol Hill Baptist Church filed for another waiver in September of 2020, and despite D.C.’s position as an outlier with their remaining restrictions, the request was denied. At this time, D.C. was in Phase Two of lifting their restrictions, opening businesses, and resuming activities; however, the limit for outdoor religious worship was 100 people. During this time, Mayor Bowser not only allowed, but encouraged participation in peaceful protests against racial discrimination and social injustices that accommodated thousands. Both peaceful protests and outdoor religious services fall into the category of “forms of outdoor First Amendment activities”.
 |
| Capitol Hill Baptist Church outdoor worship in compliance with COVID-19 protocols (Washington, D.C. 2020). |
The Capitol Hill Baptist Church filed a lawsuit against Mayor Bowser and the city on September 22, 2020, asking for their constitutional right to free exercise of their religion to be respected in the same way as the protestors’ right to free speech. The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest advocating for the Capitol Hill Baptist Church and urging the federal district court to allow these gatherings because they place a substantial burden on religious exercise. Additionally, this case is a proper case to make this decision because they were not asking for preferential treatment, just treatment that is equal to those of non-religious groups and gatherings.
Furthermore, the difference between the restrictions on these activities poses the question: Is Mayor Bowser’s order limiting in-person, outdoor religious worship a violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)? This issue is important because the topic of religious exercise during the pandemic has affected religious organizations across the globe, and the extended timing of restrictions needed a decision to look to for either approval or denial.
In October of 2020, a decision was made in Capitol Hill Baptist Church v. Bowser. Judge McFadden of the U.S. District Court of D.C. ruled that the Capitol Hill Baptist Church can hold outdoor services, despite the mayor’s order because of the substantial burden placed on religious exercise, the allowance of other outdoor First Amendment activities, and the failure to prove a compelling government interest. The Judge protected the free exercise of religion and clarified that the order was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause and the RFRA. This decision was not appealed, and ultimately ended in a settlement to pay the Church’s legal fees and not impose additional restrictions that limit religious exercise.
I agree with the federal district Judge’s decision because of the disparate impact resulting from the order. The order put a substantial burden on religious exercise in D.C., clearly violated the First Amendment rights of religious organizations, and was not neutral between religion and non-religion. Additionally, the Church attempted to solve this amicably prior to filing a lawsuit and did not take legal action until their second request for a waiver was denied. Furthermore, the RFRA requires proof of compelling government interest and that this option is the least restrictive means to achieve the goal. Although the defense attempted to prove that the compelling government interest is the public health crisis, this is undermined by Mayor Bowser’s approval of large gatherings for protests during the same time that she denied the Church’s request. Additionally, the Church stated that they would continue to follow safety protocols and CDC guidelines while remaining outdoors.
Furthermore, the Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s history of compliance and clear effort to follow safety precautions shows that they were not trying to undermine the government or hold religious services illegally. The fact that a city mayor was able to stop the religious exercise of 850 individuals for months while no longer meeting the burden of proof is evidence that a statement needed to be made that those restrictive actions will not be tolerated. If an unconstitutional order of Mayor Bowser in D.C. is approved on such a public stage, what other unconstitutional orders would city and state officials put into effect? A win for Mayor Bowser now would be a loss for the American people in the future.
Sources:
I think it is extremely unconstitutional that the Mayor accommodated and encouraged protests with gatherings of over one thousands, yet did not allow Churches to gather outdoors, socially distanced, of one-hundred people to worship. This places a substantial burden of people's free exercise to practice their religion and government enforcements. I think it is interesting to note that this all occurred during the time of the George Floyd protests and uprisings, whereby those citizens were encouraged to speak out and express their First Amendment rights; yet expressing that same right for religious motives was ignored then denied. This double standard by the government, especially with the Churches open willingness to go above and beyond to comply with Covid safety measures, further proves that the government may sometimes preach they act in the best interest of the people yet have actions whos intents speak otherwise. The majority would be those who may not possess a religion or chose to protest in their free time. This places the worship, expression, and practice of religion into a neglected state, by which people who possess a religion are treated as a minority with the particular rules.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Melissa. The religion vs. non-religion aspect is most compelling to me. I think that both peaceful protests and the outdoor religious services could be held to show the neutrality of the mayor and regulation. Privileging non-religion over religion brings about the same constitutional questions as would a situation where religion was privileged over non-religion. Although, they are two different situations, and I'm sure there are some various rules in regard to both, freedom of religion and freedom to protest fall into the same category, like Melissa pointed out. That being said, if they are in the same category and are both safely taking place outside, I struggle to find the difference. Peaceful protest is also very important, but both can be done safely.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Melissa here, and it is hard not to. Melissa posed the comparison between having the ability to exercise ones free speech rights, and being able to freely exercise their religion. While the constitutionality of the restriction itself is a little easier to debate by itself, the argument becomes one sides when an exception is allowed for one secular group over a non-secular group. This brings up the issue of state neutrality, which is clearly being violated here, hence making the Mayors denial of a waiver unconstitutional. Both freedom of expression and freedom to practice ones religion should be treated equally in the time of a public health crisis. IN addition, the mayor argument that he had compelling interest to halt these gathering in order to prevent the spread of COVID is nullified with his support of protests, which are dense gatherings.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the decision of the court less so because of 1st Amendment claims and more because the facts supported the idea that it was now safe to resume outdoor gatherings. At the beginning of the pandemic, when much less was known about that the virus, such as how it was transmitted and where it was more or less likely to be contracted, the restrictions were justified. But as we learned more, we realized that there was minimal chance of the virus being transmitted outdoors, which means that there was not a compelling state interest to regulate the action. Therefore, the church should be allowed to resume outdoor gatherings.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion and the decision of the court. I think that they fall under the protection of the First Amendment and because it was an outdoor service it is even more of a reason to allow it to commence. I really liked you comparison of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. They both have the right to be protected and one should not be protected more than the other in regards to protests or outside worship. The mayor wanting to stop the protests didn't have any weight once the protests commenced. I think if you are going to allow a secular activity to occur during the pandemic you need to also allow a non-secular activity for the state to remain neutral in these matters. I think the mayor prohibiting this from occurring is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteWhile the protests advocated and protected by Mayor Bowser have some merit and were outside, thereby mitigating some chances of COVID spread, to limit religious officials from partaking in similar measures is a clear violation of Free Exercise all at the same time she supported other forms of "first amendment speech". It is both hypocritical, unwise, and unconstitutional. I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion and the ruling of the judge.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very well-written post and I totally agree with your perspective. To me it seems very unconstitutional that the mayor of DC would allow and encourage protests outside while prohibiting religious services outside. This is definitely prohibiting people's ability to freely practice their religions, especially since other states were also lifting the bans on religious services. While COVID-19 is an important threat, it is also important to consider the impact that it has on the practice of religion, constitutional freedom. Many people feel that to practice their religion they must gather and be in places of worship, the mayor should not be interfering with this.
ReplyDelete