The Coronavirus pandemic has posed many issues pertaining to religious gatherings and services. Like many churches and places of worship across the country, Calvary Chapel in Maine filed a lawsuit against Governor Mills. Calvary Chapel of Bangor requested a temporary restraining order to exempt themselves from following the social-distancing guidelines put in place for non-essential organizations. The executive order went into effect on May 1st, 2020 and stated that “the Commissioner of the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) shall implement the Restarting Plan and identify businesses and activities where current restrictions may be adjusted to safely allow for more economic and personal activity”. Calvary Chapel opposed this executive order on the grounds that they were an essential organization and should be allowed to gather despite the pandemic. The church claimed they would suffer “irreparable harm” due to the restrictions. Due to the size of the church building and the standard rule prohibiting gatherings of more than 10 people, Calvary Chapel was unable to hold services as they do in times of normalcy. However, Maine allowed religious groups to gather in-person as long as participants stay in the vehicles. Additionally, there were no restrictions on live-streaming services or preventing any virtual religious activities. It was unclear if Calvary Chapel had intentions to wear masks and attempt to follow social distancing guidelines.
Any oppositions or concerns associated with this executive order were to go through the DECD. Calvary Chapel neglected to contact the DECD prior to filing suit and contacted Governor Mills’ directly via email demanding written confirmation in less than 24 hours that the prohibition on gatherings of more than 10 people had been rescinded so they could gather for services. May 1st, 2020 was on a Friday, so the church aimed to receive this exemption for their Sunday service. Calvary Chapel filed for the restraining order on the basis that these guidelines primarily violated the Free Exercise Clause, Right to Peaceably Assemble, Free Speech Clause, and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The overarching question in this case boils down to: is religion essential? Calvary Chapel wanted to be treated as an essential organization and be exempt from social distancing guidelines. Many courts across the US have considered this, and it was determined that “a state does not violate the Free Exercise Clause when it limits in-person religious services to ten people, at least as long as the state permits drive-in services”. Furthermore, the court concluded that this executive order was responsible for the state of Maine. COVID-19 is a serious disease that is not only impacting religious organizations. Social distancing guidelines were set up in the interest of protecting public health, and that was obvious to the court. It was also established that “gatherings in houses of worship present a greater risk to the public health than shopping at a grocery store or other retail outlet”, because most people shop promptly due to the pandemic. Calvary Chapel wanted to hold worship services for “no more than a few hours twice per week”, which clearly presents a greater risk. Secular places of congregation such as movie theaters and sporting events are also prohibited from gathering, so this order did not “unconstitutionally target and restrict its religious exercise”. Ultimately the district court denied Calvary Chapel its restraining order.
Although the pandemic has forced religious organizations to shift the method of their services, it is not discriminatory. Religion is essential for some, and the government is in no way prohibiting people from practicing their religion; large gatherings can still take place virtually or socially distanced in vehicles. This case is similar to the Los Angeles County v. Grace Community Church. Grace Community Church is a megachurch that was sued in September of 2020 for not wearing masks and following social distancing guidelines. The guidelines were different in that case because it was later in the pandemic, but the same principles apply. Gathering and not adhering to government orders amidst the pandemic is irresponsible and should not be allowed. The government is not discriminating against religion because it is not prohibiting its practice entirely, but merely doing what is best for the public health crisis. If the court allowed Grace Community Church or Calvary Chapel to gather, it would set the precedent for all other faith-based communities that want to gather which would be harmful to the nation as a whole. The government’s interest in instituting social distancing guidelines is not an attack on religion in the slightest, therefore it was not unconstitutional to prevent Calvary Chapel from gathering in person.
Post by Lauren R.
4 comments:
My chief disagreement with your assessment comes with your assertion of the question at hand. You say the obvious question in this case is whether religion is essential. Although religion is not essential to all citizens, it is to many, and is likewise protected in free exercise and assembly by the First Amendment. Instead, I would argue the question at hand is whether the interest of the state to promote public health and welfare outweighs the First Amendment rights of these churchgoers. I would agree with you that it doesn't due to viable alternatives for worship and the magnitude of public health concerns.
This case is not an isolated case in itself. Churches and places of worship all around the country have felt the impacts of the covid virus, as all churches had to close their doors earlier in the year. I think the essential question in this case is not what you have stated, but rather a question of whether religion and the first amendment protections that it contains is more powerful than the humanitarian crisis that we are facing in the coronavirus and the obligation that the state has to protect its citizens from further effects of this virus. To answer my own question I stated above, I believe that the leaders in this country have obligations to control the virus and the health of the public, so this alone in itself should trump the first amendment and close the doors on churches and places of religious practice all around the country.
I also agree with Chris that the essential question for this case revolves around whether or not free exercise of religion protected in the First Amendment takes precedent over the public safety and health restrictions due to the global pandemic. Although I do think that people should be able to practice their religion despite the circumstances, gathering in large crowds to do so is putting the public at more of a risk to catch and spread this virus. Therefore, I agree with Lauren's statement that the government is not discriminating against the Church because it is not prohibiting the practice entirely, but ensuring the safety of their citizens in this time of crisis. There are also alternative ways to practice religion besides going to meet in person. Church services can even be held virtually now, which prevents any potential spread or harm that a large in person gathering would most likely only propel. At this specific moment in time, I would argue that public health takes precedent over in-person religious gatherings.
While I agree with your analysis of the case at hand, I have to disagree, along with the earlier comments, with the question that you found to be at the heart of this debate. Whether or not church is classified as essential, the state interest is the key factor in my opinion. In this case, the state interest is to control the spread of coronavirus, which, as you said, is a compelling reason to infringe upon individuals' free exercise of religion. The classification of essential, even in the midst of the pandemic, does not mean free from regulation. Businesses and other essential services still had to comply with certain restrictions and limitations, as the state is requiring of churches here.
Post a Comment