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
7 comments:
Great post! I agree that the state violated the Church's free exercise rights. If the regulations had been uniform across secular and nonsecular organizations and gatherings than there would not have been a problem, but the fact that casinos and movie theaters were permitted to host more people than the church makes this a direct burden on religion.
I agree with your conclusion on this case and feel that the state violated the Church's free exercise rights. Similar to Devin's points, if the state created a restriction for all non-essential businesses for the safety of public health, then that would be understandable. I doubt many would argue that casino's and movie theaters are "essential" businesses that need to remain open during a pandemic with little to no capacity restrictions. Maybe this was not the intent, but this seems to be almost hostile view towards religion if other businesses are not facing such scrutiny during the pandemic. I think you summed up your points really well in arguing that this is a direct burden on the practice of religion, nice job.
Tris,
I agree entirely with your opinion. You brought up interesting aspects involving public health ordinances and how they differed from organization to organization. I was particularly interested in the aspect of allowing vast numbers of individuals in casinos and cinemas while churches were being highly regulated. As you stated, Governor Steve Sisolak claimed “the limitations on religious gatherings are part of a broader effort to mitigate the risk of transmission in large gatherings.” With this, I respectfully disagree. Churches, which are tax-exempt organizations, could be easily regulated because they did not contribute any substantial help to the failing economy during the Covid-19 pandemic. Casinos and cinemas, however, contributed a much larger sum to the suffering economy. With this observation, I am led to believe that the Governor’s reasoning for heavily regulating churches laid much deeper than simply protecting the public at large.
Hi Tris,
This is a really good post! You articulated your argument very well and I agree with you that the state’s actions in this case were unconstitutional. The differential treatment of secular and religious gatherings is problematic because it shows a government disfavor of religion. I feel like this raises establishment concerns in addition to free exercise ones because it violates the principle of neutrality. I like your point about how the government should not be deciding whether or not someone’s faith is “essential.” In my opinion, because free exercise of religion is a constitutional right, then it is always essential if the practitioner believes it to be.
Tris, this was a very interesting post. I agree with you that the Governor’s edict violated the free exercise rights of Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley and that the Coronavirus restrictions made by the state of Nevada were not neutral towards religious activities. This case reminds me of a recent Supreme Court case that I found when researching for one of my blog posts. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the COVID-19 restrictions put forth by the New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, violated a “minimum requirement of neutrality” when he placed greater restrictions on religious organizations when compared to secular organizations/businesses that he deemed to be “essential.” The court found the practices to not be neutral towards religion and issued a preliminary injunction. Using that case as precedent, I believe the Supreme Court would rule the same way in this case.
Nice post Tris. Your argument about the neutrality of this case was the most appealing to me. The fact that the Church was treated differently than secular "nonessential" businesses during COVID would be deemed not neutral. There was no compelling state interest in keeping casinos open and not having Church gatherings open to the public. When you look at it through this lens you would see that the government is favoring secular over nonsecular entities which shouldn't be allowed in this case.
Tris,
This was a very interesting post and I agree with your arguments. The difference in treatment of secular and religious gatherings raises concerns of free exercise clause violations. The government favoring secular activities over religious ones demonstrates a lack of neutrality, and as you rightly point out. I also agree with Maddy's point that it's worth considering how these restrictions might disproportionately impact certain groups. Perhaps a more nuanced approach balancing public health concerns with the right to religious assembly could be explored.
Post a Comment