SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH V GAVIN NEWSOME ...

SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH V GAVIN NEWSOME, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL

Supreme Court of the United States, Full Court deciding by majority 5/4, 29 May 2020 Whether an injunction should be granted to a church against Californian Covid 19 restrictions.

Key words: Injunctive Relief, United States, Covid 19, Public Health Restrictions, Health And Safety Laws Purview Of States, Broad Discretion To States

1. The South Bay United Pentecostal Church (the Church) sought injunctive relief against the State of California in relation to the imposition of gathering restrictions in response to Covid 19. The restrictions limited church gatherings in California to 25% of total occupancy, or to a maximum of 100 persons. The Church claimed that this was contrary to the free exercise of religion clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2. The court, by a majority of 5 to 4, declined to grant injunctive relief. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, explained that there was no discrimination against religion because there were similar or more severe restrictions in place for secular gatherings such as theatres, concerts, movies and sports where people gathered in close proximity for long periods. Only dissimilar activities such as grocery stores, banks and laundromats were exempted, and these did not see large gatherings for long periods.

3. Moreover, it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to rule on the matter since the Constitution entrusted the `safety and health of the people' to the states. Where the states had to act in fast-moving situations of medical and scientific uncertainty their latitude to do so had to be `especially broad': Marshall v United States, 414 U.S. 417, 427 (1974). This did not require `second-guessing' by the federal judiciary. Therefore, the gathering restrictions on the church were not unconstitutional.

This was a split decision of the court, with a casting vote by Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the decision. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a dissent for the minority which pointed to the large number of businesses (shopping malls, most retail stores, factories, offices, hair salons, restaurants) not subject to the 25% cap on attendance which applied to places of religious worship. Justice Kavanaugh said that a compelling reason was required to distinguish between

churches and other places not subject to the 25% cap. Without a compelling reason, the cap was a breach of the First Amendment.

This case may be viewed at

Read more notable cases in The Australian Nonprofit Sector Legal and Accounting Almanac series.

Author: McGregor-Lowndes, Myles & Hannah, Frances M. Email: acpns@qut.edu.au Date of creation: June 2020 Number of case: 2020-55 Disclaimer: The material included in this document is produced by QUT's Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies (ACPNS) with contribution from some authors outside QUT. It is designed and intended to provide general information in summary form for general informational purposes only. The material may not apply to all jurisdictions. The contents do not constitute legal advice, are not intended to be a substitute for legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. You should seek legal advice or other professional advice in relation to any particular matters you or your organisation may have. Commons licence: This work is licenced under a Creative Attribution 4.0 International Non Commercial and No Derivatives licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download