COVID 19 Summary: The federal district court denied an injunction blocking application of Illinois Governor Jay Pritzker's stay-at-home order against churches. The plaintiff church has appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed the lower court on March 8, 2021. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case and it is now closed.
In his COVID-19 “stay-at-home” executive orders, J. B. Pritzker, the governor of Illinois, required churches to discontinue all in-person services, including drive-in services. The Beloved Church of Lena, a church of 80 congregants, alleged that the governor’s orders violated the congregants’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and similar rights under the Illinois Constitution. Represented by the Thomas More Society, the Beloved Church and its pastor filed this Section 1983 lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on April 30, 2020, and, simultaneously, sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The Complaint sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees . The defendants were the governor of Illinois; the sheriff of Stephenson County, Illinois; the Department of Public Health of Stephenson County; and the Chief of Police of the Village of Lena.
The plaintiffs alleged that the governor’s stay-at-home orders in March and April, expected to extend at least through May, were unconstitutional both facially and as-applied. Facially, the orders did not protect the church’s constitutional rights of freedom of religion, speech, or assembly, nor its right to due process. They alleged that because establishments from liquor stores to dog groomers to golf courses were allowed to remain open under the executive orders, the governor discriminated against people of faith by prohibiting religious services. As applied, prominent government officials had violated the stay-at-home orders with no consequence, and many jurisdictions around the state had declined to enforce the orders at all. By contrast, the church had received cease-and-desist letters from the county sheriff and Department of Public Health, threatening civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance.
In consequence of the cease-and-desist letters, the plaintiffs alleged in their motion for a temporary restraining order that in order to hold worship services on May 3, they needed emergency injunctive relief from the court.
Additionally, they alleged that regardless of the constitutionality of the orders, the governor lacked statutory authority under the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act to extend the state of emergency (at thus the stay-at-home order) past April 7. On April 30, the governor issued a new executive order which reclassified religious worship as "essential." The new executive order permitted religious gatherings, but limited the size of gatherings and required social distancing measures.
On May 3, Judge John Z. Lee denied both the temporary restraining order and the preliminary injunction, writing that the “societal and political debate about how to balance [COVID-related] interests is beyond the purview of this Court.” Cassell v. Snyders, 2020 WL 2112374 (May 3, 2020).
The plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit (USCA Case No. 20-1757), and on May 5 asked Judge Lee to issue an injunction against the defendants while the case was pending appeal. The following day, Judge Lee denied the motion for injunction pending appeal. On June 26, the defendant sought to stay proceedings pending the appeal, which the court granted.
On March 8, 2021, the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion, affirming the lower court's denial for the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. 990 F.3d 539. The court reasoned that when the prospect of irreparable injury to the plaintiffs is low and the interests of non-parties to the litigation are at stake, the balance of interest weighs against granting preliminary relief. Furthermore, the strict ten-person limit order had already expired. The court also found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their due process and state law claims in federal court. The court advised the plaintiffs that they could seek a new preliminary injunction if the governor issued a new order reimposing limits similar to the ones they had been challenging.
Back in the district court, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on May 13, 2021, which the court granted the same day and dismissed the case.
Gregory Marsh - 08/13/2020
compress summary
