Gateway City Church v. Newsom

Background

Gateway City Church, The Home Church, The Spectrum Church, Orchard Community Church, and Trinity Bible Church asked the court to stop the State and County from enforcing restrictions on indoor worship services. Alternatively, they sought a seven-day temporary injunction so they could ask the Ninth Circuit for relief. The State and County separately opposed the emergency motion.

On January 29, 2021, the court had granted in part and denied in part the churches’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It barred enforcement of the State’s 100-person limit for places of worship in Tier 2 and 200-person limit in Tier 3, but did not bar percentage-based capacity limits or the Tier 1 prohibition on indoor worship. It also barred certain restrictions on activities at places of worship other than worship services, except when comparable restrictions were enforced against secular businesses or activities. The court had denied the rest of the requested preliminary injunction after finding that the churches were unlikely to succeed on their claim that the restrictions violated the First Amendment’s protection for religious exercise.

Effect of the Supreme Court’s intervening decision

On February 5, 2021, the Supreme Court granted temporary relief in a related case. It barred the State from enforcing the Tier 1 prohibition on indoor worship against the applicants in that case, but left percentage capacity limits and the prohibition on indoor singing and chanting in place. A majority of the participating justices joined or concurred in reasoning that the restrictions likely failed the demanding legal test called strict scrutiny because the State had not explained why narrower measures used in secular settings could not protect public health in religious settings. The justices differed over whether the record showed that the singing ban did not apply to the entertainment industry.

County restrictions

The Supreme Court’s decision did not address the County restrictions in this case. The district court had previously reviewed those restrictions under rational-basis review, a deferential test, because the County’s indoor-gathering ban appeared neutral toward religion and applied to secular and religious gatherings alike. In light of the Supreme Court’s treatment of the singing ban, the court concluded that the County’s gathering restrictions would likely be subject to strict scrutiny and would likely fail for the same reasons as the State restrictions.

Ruling

The court granted in part and denied in part the emergency motion. It barred the State from enforcing the Tier 1 prohibition on indoor worship against the churches. The previously issued injunction against numerical capacity limits remained in effect. The court stated that the State could still impose a 25% capacity limit on indoor worship services in any tier. It also granted relief against the County to the same extent as against the State.

The order barred both the State and County from enforcing a prohibition on indoor worship services while the churches pursued their interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. It did not bar either government from enforcing percentage-based capacity limits to the same extent those limits were enforced against secular businesses and activities.