Harvest Rock Church Files New Motion For Injunction

Harvest Rock Church and Harvest International Ministry filed a renewed motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to the federal district court of California regarding Gov. Gavin Newsom’s health order. 

The filing comes after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s orders involving the emergency petition of the churches, and directed the district court to reconsider the ruling in light of the High Court’s decision in granting an injunction for churches and synagogues in New York.

Lawyers requested an injunction for this past weekend, but there was no record of the request being heard.

“Plaintiffs need immediate relief by this Sunday, Dec. 6, 2020 because they face the unconscionable and unconstitutional choice of attending religious worship services or facing criminal punishment, jail, daily fines, and the closure of their Churches,” according to court papers.  

“And, Harvest Rock Church has been explicitly threatened with daily criminal punishment, fines, imprisonment, and closure of its Church for violating the Governor’s unconstitutional color-coded regime of religious discrimination.”

Newsom’s new health order went into effect Sunday night. That bars large gatherings except for outdoor protests and worship services. 

If the virus continues to spread unchecked, the state could run out of beds in hospital intensive care units (ICU) within the next three weeks, according to projections. 

“This is the tipping point,” Newsom tweeted last week. “CA has worked hard to prepare for a surge — but we can’t sustain the record high cases we’re seeing.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in September that the content of the speech was not an issue. The issue lies with speech taking place indoors before large groups.

In the 2-1 decision denying the church’s request, the appellate court judges wrote that “In order to demonstrate that an injunction pending appeal is warranted, Harvest Rock must show that it is likely to succeed on the merits, that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the case Brooklyn v. Cuomo that such restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because the regulations treated houses of worship more harshly than comparable secular facilities.

“Not only is there no evidence that the applicants have contributed to the spread of COVID-19, but there are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services,” the High Court held.

“Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area,” the justices wrote. “But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.”

That ruling also is not final, according to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Like the Pasadena appellate court ruling, the Supreme Court sent the case back down to a lower court to decide. 

City officials have sent the church a cease and desist letter.

The city prosecutor’s office and the city code enforcement division have threatened the church with criminal charges, fines, and closure for being open for worship against the governor’s orders and local health orders. The letters threaten up to one year in prison, daily criminal charges, and $1,000 fines against the pastors, staff, and parishioners.