State Health Orders Violating the Free Exercise of its Citizens

             During the COVID-19 pandemic, churches in Nevada were prevented from congregating to their usual standard, for the purposes of what the state referred to as “public health.” Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak was a case about just that, and to the constitutionality of Nevada's COVID-19 restrictions on religious gatherings. The case originated when Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley, a church in Nevada, challenged Governor Steve Sisolak's directive which  limited in-person religious services to 50 people, regardless of the size of the church building. He did all this while at the same time allowing larger gatherings at casinos and other secular establishments.  The language in the Governor’s edict said that a “10-screen multiplex” may host 500 moviegoers at any time, and that a casino may also cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table and similar numbers of people gathered at every roulette wheel. But churches, synagogues, and mosques were banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers, again, regardless of the size of the building, or the level of compliance with public health orders.

The central question in this case seems to be whether Nevada's differential treatment of religious gatherings compared to secular activities violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. Calvary Chapel argued that the state's restrictions unfairly targeted religious worship and placed unconstitutional burdens on its exercise. The church also made the case that by allowing larger secular gatherings while limiting religious ones, the government was essentially engaging in impermissible discrimination against religious organizations, which would in fact be in clear violation of their constitutional rights.

Governor Steve Sisolak as well as other state officials defended the restrictions as necessary measures to combat the spread of COVID-19 and protect public health. They argued that the limitations on religious gatherings are part of a broader effort to mitigate the risk of transmission in large gatherings, regardless of their purpose. The state claimed that its directives were “content-neutral” and did in fact apply equally to all gatherings, irrespective of whether they were religious or secular in nature. This did not easily square with the rather conspicuous and axiomatic attempt to do precisely the opposite as evidenced by the governor's directives.

The case eventually received widespread attention at the time due to its implications for religious freedom as it related to public health during the pandemic which was a time of great political division. Supporters of Calvary Chapel argued that the government's restrictions unfairly infringed upon the fundamental right to freely exercise religion, particularly when secular activities are subject to less stringent limitations. They also noted that churches should be treated no differently than other essential businesses or entities allowed to operate with greater capacity. This is an argument that makes sense in both a literal sense, as well as a constitutional sense. Many people do see their faith as essential, and the question posed is such: Who is the state to determine for we, the people, what precisely constitutes “essential.” The church buttressed its case by going even further and attempting to make an appeal on more human grounds, arguing that the restrictions imposed by the state hindered their ability to conduct meaningful religious services and deprived their congregants of essential spiritual guidance and support, particularly during a time of crisis which this was.

The proponents of the state's measures, however, argued for and stressed the compelling interest issue in regards to safeguarding public health and preventing the spread of COVID. They made the case that during a pandemic, government officials must have the authority to implement restrictions that may temporarily limit certain rights, including the freedom to assemble for religious worship, in order to protect the broader community from harm. It's a similar issue we saw in previous cases regarding the wearing of religious headwear among military service members. If it poses safety threats, in terms of troop identification or otherwise, if it could cause friendly fire among members of the same military force, then shouldn't we prioritize troop safety and their lives above their religious beliefs? This is a similar question that the Governor of Nevada seemed to pose, and which convinced the court to deny the church’s emergency application and to side with the state and its public health edicts.

            I disagree with the outcome of the case, and I think the Governor and his edicts violated the Church’s free exercise rights. The state authorities favored the rights of secular institutions to publicly gather, no matter how inessential they were. Churches however were verboten. In both the numbers of allowed churchgoers, and the level of public health compliance to which they were subjected, the state simply did not give Churches equal treatment under the law when compared to irreligious institutions like casinos which are more profitable to the state than a Church might be. This not only robs people of the choice to make their own decisions in public health matters but also of the right to freely exercise their religion, which under the purview of the first amendment, should be the cardinal concern in cases like this. 

Sources:   https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/calvary-chapel-dayton-valley-v-sisolak/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19A1070