Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Cody

Background

Calvary Chapel San Jose, Southridge Baptist Church, Mike McClure, and Micaiah Irmler sued Sara Cody, Erica Pan, Gavin Newsom, several Santa Clara County supervisors, and the County of Santa Clara. The federal complaint alleged violations of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses and a right to privacy under the California Constitution.

The plaintiffs resumed indoor religious services in May 2020. The County later issued a cease-and-desist letter and notices of violation based on alleged noncompliance with public-health orders, including requirements concerning masks, social distancing, singing, and indoor gatherings. The plaintiffs appealed the notices and fines, but the hearing officer upheld the fines.

In October 2020, the County counsel and Santa Clara County District Attorney filed an enforcement action against Calvary Chapel San Jose and McClure in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The state court issued a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction requiring compliance with the State and County public-health orders and requiring submission and implementation of a social-distancing protocol. The state court also held Calvary Chapel San Jose and McClure in contempt and ordered $55,000 in fines.

The plaintiffs then asked the federal court for a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the state-court preliminary injunction and stopping the ongoing state proceedings. The requested relief would have prevented enforcement of orders limiting or prohibiting indoor religious gatherings and singing.

Legal standard

A temporary restraining order uses the same standard as a preliminary injunction. The requesting party must show a likely chance of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, that the balance of hardships favors relief, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court described this relief as an extraordinary remedy that is not automatically available.

The court also considered Younger abstention. Abstention is a federal court’s decision not to exercise jurisdiction in order to avoid improper interference with state proceedings. The court explained that abstention generally applies when the state proceeding is ongoing, involves an enforcement action or important state interests, gives the federal plaintiff an adequate opportunity to raise federal challenges, and would be disrupted or effectively stopped by the federal case.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the state proceeding was ongoing. It reasoned that the state court’s preliminary injunction was only the beginning of the case, not the end, and noted that the County had begun serving discovery requests. The federal case had not advanced beyond the pleadings stage, and there had been no operative complaint when the state court set the contempt hearing.

The plaintiffs did not contest that the state proceeding was an enforcement action, involved important state interests, provided an opportunity to raise federal challenges, and would be disrupted by the requested federal order. The court recognized that stopping the spread of COVID-19 was an important state interest.

The plaintiffs argued that extraordinary circumstances justified an exception to abstention, relying in part on the claimed loss of First Amendment freedoms. The court rejected that argument on the record before it. It found that the plaintiffs had presented no evidence showing an extraordinarily urgent need for federal equitable relief and declined to hold that every First Amendment challenge automatically qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance under Younger.

Disposition

The court invoked Younger abstention and denied the plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order. The order did not decide the merits of the federal claims and expressly stated that the asserted claims in the federal action were not affected by the order.