COVID-19 Summary: This is an action brought by the Maryville Baptist Church against the enforcement of various COVID-19 related gathering orders issued by the Governor of Kentucky, which kept them from holding in-person and drive-in services. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and a permanent injunction that would keep the defendant from enforcing gathering orders. On May 2, the Sixth Circuit granted in part the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction but declined to enjoin the prohibition of in-person gatherings. On May 8, the District Court granted the motion for injunction, enjoining the prohibition of in-person services as long as the plaintiffs adhered to social-distancing guidelines. The defendants moved to dismiss. The case is ongoing.
On April 17, 2020, Maryville Baptist Church and its pastor filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kentucky. Represented by Liberty Counsel, the plaintiffs sued the Governor of Kentucky under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. §2000cc, et seq, the Kentucky constitution, and state law. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the enforcement of various COVID-19 related gathering orders issued by the governor -- which were enforced through the dispatch of the Kentucky State police and posted notices of criminal violations and quarantine requirements on all vehicles during the Easter Sunday worship service -- violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Article IV of the Constitution, RLUIPA, and state law. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendant from enforcing the gathering orders, to allow for drive-in and in-person church services insofar as the social distancing requirements were met, and a termination of the notices filed by the Kentucky State Police. The case was assigned to Judge David J. Hale, then referred to Judge Regina S. Edwards.
Additionally on April 17, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction. Judge Hale denied the TRO the following day, stating that the plaintiffs had not proved they were likely to succeed on the merits, as the gathering orders applied not only to religious conduct and faith-based gathering, but applied broadly to all gatherings and congregative activity. 2020 WL 1909616.
The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit on April 24 and filed an emergency motion to enter an injunction of the gathering orders, pending appeal.
On May 2, the Sixth Circuit granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction pending the appeal, enjoining the defendant from enforcing the gathering orders against drive-in services at the Maryville Baptist Church, as long as the plaintiffs adhered to the public health requirements mandated for "life-sustaining" entities. The court declined to grant the plaintiffs' request for an injunction as to in-person services. The court noted that the plaintiffs' claims would be moot after May 20, the date had agreed to permit places of worship to reopen. 957 F.3d 610.
On May 4, the plaintiffs renewed their motion for a preliminary injunction pending appeal, which was granted on May 8. In his order, Judge Hale noted that the defendants were enjoined from enforcing the ban on mass gatherings to in-person services at the church as long as plaintiffs adhered to public health requirements set by state officials. 2020 WL 2393359.
Also on May 8, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. They claimed that the Eleventh Amendment barred suits against state officials due to sovereign immunity and that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the RLUIPA because the gathering orders regulated conduct, not land use. The defendants amended their motion to dismiss on May 12, noting that other district courts had similarly denied the relief plaintiffs were requesting.
The same day, the Sixth Circuit consolidated a case, Theodore Roberts v. Robert Neace, for the purpose of appeal.
On May 12, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for clarification or status conference, stating that the governor's newly issued guidelines for faith-based organizations rendered the previous order unclear. The motion was denied the next day.
On June 17, the plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss.
On June 29, the defendants filed a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction and injunction pending appeal, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court had addressed a similar matter in the case
South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. The defendants claimed that in his concurrence, Justice Roberts had made clear that the mass gatherings order in question passed the constitutional muster and should not be enjoined. The plaintiffs responded on July 20, arguing that the court has no jurisdiction to consider the motion and that a Supreme Court Justice's concurrence in another case is not binding.
In the Sixth Circuit, the Commonwealth of Kentucky filed filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs on July 7. On July 28, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs' claim was moot because places of worship could now hold indoor in-person services
The case is ongoing.
Averyn Lee - 07/27/2020
compress summary
