Danville Christian Acad., Inc. v. Beshear

141 S.Ct. 527 (Mem)

208 L.Ed.2d 504

DANVILLE CHRISTIAN ACADEMY, INC., et al v. Andy BESHEAR, Governor of Kentucky

No. 20A96

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 17, 2020

On November 18, the Governor of Kentucky issued a temporary school-closing Order that effectively closes K–12 schools for in-person instruction until and through the upcoming holiday break, which starts Friday, December 18, for many Kentucky schools. All schools in Kentucky may reopen after the holiday break, on January 4. A religious private school and the Attorney General of Kentucky sought a preliminary injunction against the school-closing Order as applied to religious schools. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction, but the Sixth Circuit then stayed that injunction pending appeal.

The Governor's school-closing Order effectively expires this week or shortly thereafter, and there is no indication that it will be renewed. The Order applies equally to secular schools and religious schools, but the applicants argue that the Order treats schools (including religious schools) worse than restaurants, bars, and gyms, for example, which remain open. For the latter reason, the applicants argue that the Order is not neutral and generally applicable for purposes of Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith , 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990). Several amici supporting the applicants argue in the alternative that even if the Order is neutral and generally applicable because it treats religious schools the same as secular schools, Smith still requires heightened scrutiny when the "application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action" also implicates "the right of parents" "to direct the education of their children." Id., at 881, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (citing Pierce v. Society of Sisters , 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925) ; Wisconsin v. Yoder , 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) ). The applicants did not squarely raise that alternative Smith argument in the District Court, the Sixth Circuit, or this Court.

Under all of the circumstances, especially the timing and the impending expiration of the Order, we deny the application without prejudice to the applicants or other parties seeking a new preliminary injunction if the Governor issues a school-closing order that applies in the new year.

Justice ALITO, with whom Justice GORSUCH joins, dissenting from the denial of application to vacate stay.

For the reasons explained in Justice GORSUCH's dissent, post , at ––––, I would vacate the Sixth Circuit's stay of the preliminary injunction issued by the District Court and remand for further consideration in light of the proper legal standards. While I do not agree with the Court's denial of the applicants’ request for emergency relief, no one should misinterpret that denial as signifying approval of the Sixth Circuit's decision. As I understand this Court's order, it is based primarily on timing. At this point, just a few school days remain before the beginning of many schools’ holiday break, and the executive order in question will expire before classes would normally begin next year. The Court is therefore reluctant to grant relief that, at this point, would have little practical effect.

I understand that reluctance, but in my judgment, it is unfair to deny relief on this ground since this timing is in no way the applicants’ fault. They filed this action on November 20, 2020, just two days after the issuance of the Governor's executive order. And when, on November 29, the Sixth Circuit granted a stay of the order that would have allowed classes to resume, the applicants sought relief in this Court just two days later, on December 1. It is hard to see how they could have proceeded more expeditiously.

As things now stand, this action remains on the docket of the District Court. If the Governor does not allow classes to begin after the turn of the year, the applicants can file a new request for a preliminary injunction, and if the lower courts do not provide relief, the applicants may of course return to this Court.

Justice GORSUCH, with whom Justice ALITO joins, dissenting from the denial of application to vacate stay.

Four weeks ago, the Governor of Kentucky issued two executive orders. One (the School EO) closed all elementary, middle, and high schools—including religious ones—for in-person learning, while leaving preschools, colleges, and universities untouched. The other (the Business EO) permitted virtually all other in-person activities to continue with only capacity restrictions. Movie theaters, indoor wedding venues, bowling alleys, and gaming halls remained open for business.

Religious schools challenged these decrees as a violation of the First Amendment, and the district court agreed with them. The court "wonder[ed] why" people "would be free to attend a lecture, go to work, or attend a concert, but not attend socially distanced chapel in school or pray together in a classroom that is following strict safety procedures and social distancing." Danville Christian Academy, Inc. v. Beshear , 2020 WL 6954650, *4 (ED Ky., Nov. 25, 2020). In the end, the court held that the Governor's EOs discriminated against the free exercise of religion and enjoined their enforcement against religious schools, so long as those schools followed all applicable sanitization and social distancing protocols.

The Sixth Circuit stayed the district court's injunction. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Atty. Gen. Daniel Cameron, ex rel. Danville Christian Academy, Inc. v. Beshear , 981 F.3d 505 (2020). It did so by considering the School EO in isolation and ignoring the many activities permitted under the Business EO. Looking only to the School EO, the court explained, religious exercises were subject to "neutral" and "generally applicable" rules. Id ., at 509–10. After all, the School EO treated religious and secular schools the same. Accordingly, the circuit concluded, the School EO triggered only rational-basis review and easily passed muster under the terms of Employment Div. Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith , 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990).

Whatever...