Gov. Newsom has Friday deadline to reply to Supreme Court on religious freedom case

(The Center Square) – California Gov. Gavin Newsom has until 5 p.m. Friday to respond to an appeal of the state’s church worship restrictions brought by Harvest Rock Church and Harvest International Ministry, Justice Elana Kagan ordered.

Liberty Counsel, which represents the two church groups, has now appealed to the high court for a second time in less than two months and the court has ordered Newsom to reply to challenges to his worship service restrictions for a second time.

In the last proceeding before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel granted Liberty Council’s request for an injunction halting the restrictions, pending appeal in part, for Tiers 2-4 of Newsom’s Blueprint. But the court denied the injunction against Tier 1 restrictions and a regional stay-at-home order. As a result, Liberty Counsel asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

“Gov. Gavin Newsom continues to violate the First Amendment by discriminating against houses of worship, and we have returned to the U.S. Supreme Court because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not follow the High Court’s roadmap,” Liberty Counsel founder and Chairman Mat Staver said in a statement. “We look forward to the High Court resolving this unconstitutional oppression once and for all.”

Tiers 2-3 placed 100- and 200- person caps on all houses of worship regardless of the size of their buildings. Tier 1 bans all in-person worship for all religious organizations and houses of worship. The appeals court based its ruling on precedent, saying it was bound to follow a Jan. 22 decision in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom.

But that is inconsistent at best, dissenting Senior Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain argued. The appeals court’s decision in the Harvest Rock case not only conflicted with the Supreme Court’s New York religious liberty ruling last month but also conflicted with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling striking down a 50-person limit in Nevada, he argued.

“I write separately, however, because I believe that the decision in South Bay is woefully out of step with both the Supreme Court’s decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo , and our own court’s decision in Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak,” O’Scannlain wrote. “A simple, straightforward application of these controlling cases compels what should be the obvious result here: California’s uniquely severe restrictions against religious worship services – including its total ban against indoor worship in nearly the entire state – are patently unconstitutional and should be enjoined. The court’s refusal to do so in South Bay cries out for correction.”

He added, “Even in the midst of the present pandemic, these measures are drastic: California is the only state in the country that imposes such a ban, according to the brief filed in this case by an organization participating as amicus curiae. Yet, in exactly the same locales where indoor worship is prohibited, California still allows a vast array of secular facilities to open indoors, including (to name only a few): retail stores, shopping malls, factories, food-processing plants, warehouses, transportation facilities, childcare centers, colleges, libraries, professional sports facilities, and movie studios…

“We should have little trouble concluding that these severe measures violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.”

Because the same court ruled in favor of Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley and Calvary Chapel Lone Mountain in their lawsuits against Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak’s 50-person-limit worship ban, there is now a conflict of decisions among the Ninth Circuit.

Disclaimer: This content is distributed by The Center Square