article: COVID-19 Summary: This is a suit brought by a church against the State of Colorado's enforcement of stay-at-home orders, including the policy prohibiting in-person religious activities. Following a Supreme Court decision denying a similar application for injunctive relief, plaintiffs withdrew their request for injunctive relief. They later filed an amended complaint and a renewed motion for TRO and preliminary injunction, which was denied on June 16. <hr> The "safer at home" executive orders issued by Colorado Governor Jared Polis in response to the outbreak of COVID-19 prohibited religious gatherings of over 10 people. High Plains Harvest Church, a small, rural church, and one of its pastors alleged that the orders violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Represented by private counsel, plaintiffs sued Governor Polis and the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 on May 25, 2020. The plaintiffs, who simultaneously filed a motion for temporary restraining order (TRO), sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' costs and fees. The case was assigned to Judge Raymond P. Moore and Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty. The plaintiffs alleged that the executive orders were unconstitutional both facially and as-applied, violating their freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and equal protection rights. The plaintiffs asserted that the orders burdened their sincerely held religious beliefs by "permit[ing] other similarly situated businesses or non-religious entities to continue while prohibiting faith-based gatherings." Moreover, the plaintiffs claimed that the orders violated their "freedom of speech by prohibiting them from engaging in religious speech through their church services." Finally, plaintiffs contended that the orders, which permitted "critical businesses" such as grocery, gun, and hardware stores to remain open, violated their equal protection rights by "impermissibly discriminat[ing[ between certain non-religious gatherings and religious or faith-based gatherings." Plaintiffs sought an injunction or TRO enjoining defendants from enforcing the executive orders against plaintiffs and an order declaring the orders unconstitutional. 2020 WL 2630282. In their May 28 response to the motion for TRO, defendants asserted that "the purpose of these orders is to protect the public from the COVID-19 pandemic," not to target or discriminate against plaintiffs' first amendment rights. Defendants argued that the plaintiffs had "no reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their claims" because the orders were enacted in good faith and in furtherance of public safety. The next day, the United States Department of Justice filed a statement of interest, stating that "The Court should grant the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, and Plaintiffs’ group prayer should be allowed to proceed without fear of prosecution." The DOJ explained "that because Colorado appears to be treating similarly situated non-religious activity, such as in-person dining in restaurants, better than places of worship these actions may constitute a violation of the church’s constitutional right to the free exercise of religion." That same day, the Supreme Court, in <a href="https://clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=17575">South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom</a>, denied an application for injunctive relief similar to the relief sought in this case. There, the Supreme Court stated that the "restrictions [on places of worship] appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment." On May 30, in light of the Supreme Court's decision, the plaintiffs withdrew the request for preliminary relief. On June 1, the defendants filed a status report containing draft guidelines for restrictions on places of worship. The guidelines suggested an indoor capacity of no more than 50% or 50 people, along with social distancing, masks, and sanitation measures. In the next few days, thousands of people protested police violence. On June 10, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging that the defendants “permitted and encouraged these protest gatherings while continuing to impose draconian restrictions on religious gatherings.” Concurrently, they filed a renewed motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The court denied the motion on June 16, stating that the "notion that the non-enforcement of social distancing during a protest means that the State is engaged in a variety of constitutional misconduct directed at religious institutions is far from apparent" and that "the assertion that Defendants are treating Plaintiffs differently from comparable secular gatherings is 'improbable.'" The case is ongoing.
summary: On May 25, 2020, a small church and its pastor filed this suit against Governor Palis and a Colorado public health official in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Plaintiffs challenged Colorado's "safer at home" executive orders, which prohibited religious gatherings of more than 10 people, alleging that the orders violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest suggesting that the executive orders likely violated plaintiffs' right to the free exercise of religion. Plaintiffs withdrew their request for injunctive relief after the Supreme Court denied an application for similar injunctive relief, and filed an amended complaint on June 10. They also filed a renewed motion for TRO and preliminary injunction, which was denied on June 16. The case is ongoing.