COVID-19 Summary: On May 7, two churches in Illinois sued the Governor of Illinois, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Governor’s stay-at-home order and restoration plan, which limited gatherings to 10 or fewer people. The court denied the request for a TRO on May 13, the Seventh Circuit denied the plaintiff's request for an injunction pending appeal, and the Supreme Court denied the appeal on May 27. On June 16, the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
On May 7, the Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church and Logos Baptist Ministries filed this action against Governor J.B. Pritzker, seeking to overturn the restrictions on religious activities imposed by the stay-at-home order and his “Restore Illinois” plan. The plaintiffs brought this case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as a declaratory action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, and as an injunctive action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and state law. Specifically, the two Chicago-area churches argued that the plan, which continues to limit in-person gatherings to 10 or fewer people for the first 3 phases and threatens criminal sanctions for noncompliance, was unconstitutional. The case was assigned to Judge Robert W. Gettleman and Magistrate Judge Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings.
On May 8, the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the government from enforcing the gathering orders, which would keep the plaintiffs and their congregants from being subject to criminal sanctions for hosting in-person worship services where they were implementing social distancing and hygiene protections.
On May 13, the district court denied the request for TRO and preliminary order, finding that “[t]he Order, without doubt, is rationally based in light of the need to slow the spread of COVID-19 in Illinois.” Judge Gettleman, pointing out that none of the those participating in the religious activity were wearing protective masks, claimed that the plaintiffs’ request and “blatant refusal to follow the mandates of the Order are both ill-founded and selfish.” 2020 WL 2468194.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit the next day requesting an injunction pending appeal, which was denied on May 16. 2020 WL 2517093. On May 27, the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 29, the Governor issued Executive Order 38, which supersedes the Executive Order at issue. The new order removed the limitations on religious gatherings and specifically exempted the free exercise of religion from the restrictions outlined in the order. The defendants moved to dismiss the appeal the same day, claiming that the case has become moot as the restrictions underlying plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief are no longer in effect.
The same day, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the application for injunctive relief, citing a new public health guideline issued on May 28 by the Illinois Department of Health. 2020 WL 2781671.
On June 2, the defendant moved to stay pending appeal. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion, and the court granted the stay on June 8.
On June 16, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the injunction, finding that religious services were analogous to congregate functions that occur in auditoriums, such as concerts and movies. Such indoor activities put "members of multiple families close to one another for extended periods, while invisible droplets containing the virus may linger in the air." They stated that unlike some necessary activiites, like meatpacking warehouses or care for the elderly, religious gatherings could alternatively happen through the internet, small worship gatherings, or drive-in services. Ultimately, they held that the new Executive Order had not discriminated against religion, and thus had not violated the First Amendment. 2020 WL 3249062.
The plaintiffs requested a rehearing on July 10, which was denied on July 27.
The case is ongoing.
Averyn Lee - 09/14/2020
compress summary
