Judge Orders State to Explain Governor’s Caps on Church Capacity

A ruling by a judge in a case involving a San Diego church could have implications in a local church’s efforts to allow singing and chanting indoors.

Lawyers for Pasadena’s Harvest Rock Church have filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals calling for the end to all limitations established by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The court has twice upheld Newsom’s ban. 

“Plaintiffs have scratched and clawed for lasting relief for 250 days now, and this Court should reverse the district court’s refusal to enjoin the Governor from enforcing his discriminatory restrictions on religious worship services,” the brief states. 

State guidelines have always allowed for outdoor worship, despite claims of a total ban by the church’s attorneys. 

In a separate, but related case, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant, a Barack Obama appointee, ruled against South Bay United Pentecostal Church and refused to lift state guidelines for Holy Week. However, the judge ordered the state to show how it came up with its capacity caps.

“The Supreme Court has expressed frustration — and I think rightfully so — about the lack of a developed record,” Bashant said. “What I’m interested in is the occupancy rate. If the state can’t show they’re treating churches the same or better than retail, I’m inclined to issue the preliminary injunction.”

Bashant scheduled the preliminary injunction and evidentiary hearing in that case for May 13.

Several churches across the state, including Harvest Rock in Pasadena, have engaged in lengthy court battles to open their doors to their congregations. 

Pasadena will enter the less restrictive orange tier of the state’s reopening blueprint on Monday.

Under that tier, churches like Harvest Rock can allow 50 percent of the congregation inside the church. 

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a ban on indoor church attendance but upheld the state’s chant and singing ban. 

In a 6-3 vote in February, the High Court cited the Constitution’s protection of the free exercise of religion and ruled that “regulations like these violate the First Amendment unless the State can show they are the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest.”

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that federal courts owe “significant deference” to politically accountable officials in public health matters, but said that deference has its limits.

“The state’s present determination — that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero — appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake,” Roberts wrote.

The decision reflected the court’s current ideological divide with six conservative justices in favor of the partial injunction and the three liberals dissenting.

“Justices of this court are not scientists,” Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent to the majority ruling. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic.”