Churches try again to apply US Supreme Court decision in California

An amended complaint from a church challenging Gov. Gavin Newsom's COVID-19 restrictions on religious services called a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision "game-changing." But the judge in that case has already downplayed the impact of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 2020 DJDAR 12626 (Nov. 25, 2020).

The U.S. high court ruled nearly two months ago that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's limits on in-person services violated the First Amendment. References to the ruling quickly showed up in plaintiffs' briefs around the country.

"Such limits on government overreach were confirmed on November 25, 2020, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a game-changing 5-4 ruling," attorneys Robert H. Tyler of Tyler & Bursch LLP in Murrieta and Dean R. Broyles, based in Escondido, wrote in a second amended complaint filed Friday in Cross Culture Christian Center v. Newsom, 2:20-cv-00832-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal., filed April 22, 2020).

The new complaint noted the Supreme Court court found New York treated churches more harshly than other institutions and were therefore subject to strict scrutiny on the issue of compelling state interest. Broyles and Tyler then argued the federal court should apply the same standards in California.

"The State of California, in a sweeping abuse of its power, has now for nearly a year in large swathes of the state criminalized all indoor religious assembly and communal religious worship, while allowing citizens to gather nearly unimpeded at a liquor store, pot dispensary, Planned Parenthood, Walmart, CVS, Costco, Home Depot, and myriad other secular locations the State deems 'essential,'" they wrote. "Even nonessential businesses have generally fared better than houses of worship under the orders."

At a hearing last month, U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez in Sacramento said the Lodi church's first amended complaint employed a "kitchen sink" strategy and needed streamlining to speed up the litigation. Mendez also dismissed the City of Lodi from the case and rejected the church's claims under the state Constitution without leave to amend.

"I think you need a more definitive opinion," Mendez said, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The latest amended complaint makes only federal claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. But it still seeks to invalidate all limits on in-person religious services, and seeks damages and attorney fees.

"Defendants shall not interfere with plaintiffs' gatherings for religious worship so long as plaintiffs' encourage their congregations to observe medically based virus-mitigating precautions defendants place on other essential secular businesses and locations in the state," the amended complaint suggests.

Tyler and Broyles also submitted a supplemental brief in another church case on Friday. This came four days after U.S. Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, presiding judge for the Eastern District of California, ordered further briefing considering the Diocese ruling in Calvary Chapel of Ukiah v. Newsom, 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC (E.D. Cal., filed July 15, 2020).

Mueller also asked the parties to apply the Diocese precedent to Newsom's Dec. 3 regional stay-at-home order. This order allows for different levels of restrictions in various regions of the state, based on hospital intensive care capacity. The state has yet to submit its brief.

Broyles and Tylor argued the latest order "strengthens" their case. The latest order is "local and conditional," they wrote, whereas the current restrictions on worship are "statewide and unconditional."

"There is simply no legal, or scientific, justification for an absolute ban on all singing and chanting at all indoor worship services, which may explain why (to our knowledge) no other state has enacted such an absolute ban," they argued, citing Diocese.