Denver Bible Church v. Azar

494 F.Supp.3d 816

DENVER BIBLE CHURCH; Robert A. Enyart; Community Baptist Church; and Joey Rhoads, Plaintiffs,

v.Alex M. AZAR II, in his official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Health and Human Services; Chad W. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security; United States Department of Homeland Security; Steven T. Mnuchin, in his official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of the Treasury; United States Department of the Treasury; Governor Jared Polis, in his official capacity as Governor, State of Colorado; Jill Hunsaker Ryan, in her official capacity as Executive Director, Colorado Department of Health and Environment; and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02362-DDD-NRN

United States District Court, D. Colorado.

Signed October 15, 2020

J. Brad Bergford, Bergford Law Group LLC, Denver, CO, Rebecca R. Messall, Messall Law Firm, LLC, Englewood, CO, for Plaintiffs.

Jason C. Lynch, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Kyle W. Brenton, U.S. Attorney's Office, Denver, CO, for Defendants Alex M. Azar, II, Chad W. Wolf, Steven T. Mnuchin.

Jason C. Lynch, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Department of the Treasury.

Grant T. Sullivan, Colorado Attorney General's Office, Denver, CO, for Defendant Jared Polis.

Corelle M. Spettigue, Ryan K. Lorch, W. Eric Kuhn, Colorado Attorney General's Office, Denver, CO, for Defendants Jill Hunsaker Ryan, Colorado Department of Health and Environment.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Daniel D. Domenico, District Judge Plaintiffs in this case are two Colorado churches and their pastors. Presently before the court is their motion for a preliminary injunction [Doc. 13], in which they ask the court, among other things, to enjoin enforcement of certain orders the State of Colorado has put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The State rightly argues that during a public-health emergency, courts must be particularly mindful of the complex interaction between constantly evolving scientific understanding and policymaking, and the court recognizes that the decisions being made by the State Defendants here are truly matters of life and death. For the most part, the court, like Plaintiffs and the rest of Colorado's citizenry, must and does defer to State policymakers’ weighing of the costs and benefits of various restrictions imposed to minimize the spread of COVID-19.

But the existence of an emergency, even one as serious as this one, does not mean that the courts have no role to play, or that the Constitution is any less important or enforceable. And while the religious, like the irreligious or agnostic, must comply with neutral, generally applicable restrictions, the First Amendment does not allow government officials, whether in the executive or judicial branch, to treat religious worship as any less critical or essential than other human endeavors. Nor does it allow the government to determine what is a necessary part of a house of worship's religious exercise. Those fundamental principles, which involve no balancing or second-guessing of public health officials’ scientific analysis or policy judgments, require the court to grant Plaintiffs’ motion, in relatively narrow part.

In addition to other neutral and generally applicable restrictions, Colorado currently imposes capacity limits on houses of worship that are more severe than those that apply to other so-called critical businesses whose settings pose a similar risk of COVID-19 transmission, and the State allows a variety of exceptions to its facial-covering requirement where it recognizes that removing a mask is necessary to carry out a particular activity. The court does not doubt that the State made these decisions in good faith, in an effort to balance the benefits of more public interaction against the added risk that inheres in it. But the Constitution does not allow the State to tell a congregation how large it can be when comparable secular gatherings are not so limited, or to tell a congregation that its reason for wishing to remove facial coverings is less important than a restaurant's or spa's.

Although Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of most of their asserted claims, they have demonstrated a likelihood of success on their First Amendment free exercise claim against the State Defendants. Plaintiffs have also shown that the other preliminary-injunction factors weigh in their favor as to their free exercise claim. The court therefore grants Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in part. The State Defendants are enjoined from enforcing their Executive Orders and Public Health Orders against Plaintiffs, to the extent those orders treat houses of worship differently from comparable secular institutions. Specifically, the State Defendants are enjoined from enforcing the additional numerical occupancy limitations for worship services, and the requirement that congregants wear face masks at all times during worship services.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction seeks (1) to enjoin the State Defendants from enforcing certain orders they have issued in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic; and (2) to enjoin the Federal Defendants from providing further COVID-19 disaster relief to the State so long as the State's allegedly unlawful orders remain in effect.¹ [Pls.’ Mot., Doc. 13.] Defendants have filed responses opposing the requested preliminary injunction. [State Defs.’ Resp., Doc. 41; Fed. Defs.’ Resp., Doc. 43.] Plaintiffs have filed replies. [Reply to State Defs.’ Resp., Doc. 44; Reply to Fed. Defs.’ Resp., Doc. 45.] After examining the parties’ briefs, the court requested supplemental information from the parties, which they provided. [See Order, Doc. 49; State Defs.’ Suppl. Br., Doc. 50; Minute Order, Doc. 51; Resp. to State Defs.’ Suppl. Br., Doc. 56.] The court has determined that it is not necessary to hold a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion.²

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On January 21, 2020, the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the United States was diagnosed.³ On January 31, Defendant Azar, the Secretary of Defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, declared a public-health emergency in response to COVID-19 pursuant to the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247d. [Azar Determination, Ex. 6 to Compl., Doc. 1-6.] On March 5, the first presumptive cases of COVID-19 were identified in Colorado.⁴ On March 10, Defendant Polis, the Colorado Governor, declared a state of disaster emergency in the State pursuant to the Colorado Disaster Emergency Act ("CDEA"), Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 24-33.5-701 to 717.⁵ [EO D 2020 003, Ex. 9 to Compl., Doc. 1-9 at 2.] On March 13, President Donald Trump declared pursuant to the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601 - 51, that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constitutes a national emergency that had begun on March 1. [Trump Proclamation, Ex. 8 to Compl., Doc. 1-8.]

Since that time, Governor Polis and Defendant Ryan, the Executive Director of Defendant CDPHE, have issued numerous Executive Orders and Public Health Orders to slow the spread of COVID-19 in Colorado.⁶ Among other things, these orders have temporarily closed certain businesses, then permitted them to reopen with precautions in place; restricted gathering sizes at numerous facilities, including churches and other houses of worship; required businesses to implement measures like cleaning and disinfecting high-touch surfaces and ensuring proper ventilation; first required, then encouraged individuals to stay at home or outdoors as much as possible, except to perform necessary activities; required individuals to wear face masks in public indoor spaces, with certain exceptions; and required individuals to maintain a six-foot distance from non-household members in certain public spaces.

Primarily at issue in this motion is Public Health Order 20-35,⁷ which is the CDPHE's current implementation of the Governor's "Safer at Home" directives in Executive Order D 2020 091.⁸ In Executive Order D 2020 091,⁹ the Governor directed implementation of a set of protective measures dubbed Safer at Home, and eased some of the protective measures previously imposed under his "Stay at Home" Executive Order.¹⁰ Also at issue here is Executive Order D 2020 138 [Ex. 15 to Compl., Doc. 1-15],¹¹ which is incorporated by reference in Public Health Order 20-35, and generally requires individuals to wear face masks in public indoor spaces.

The Federal Defendants, for their part, have provided COVID-19 disaster relief to the State pursuant to the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121 - 5207, and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act"), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020). On March 25, 2020, Governor Polis requested that President Trump declare a "Major Disaster" for the State of Colorado pursuant to the Stafford Act. [Polis Letter, Ex. 37 to Compl., Doc. 1-37.] On March 28, the President granted that request. Colorado; Major Disaster and Related Determinations, 85 Fed. Reg. 31,541 -02 (Mar. 28, 2020). The President's national emergency declaration and Major Disaster declaration for Colorado had the effect of authorizing the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") to provide various forms of federal assistance to the State under the Stafford Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 5170 - 93. Under the CARES Act, Defendant U.S. Department of the Treasury has overseen disbursements to the State from the Coronavirus Relief Fund. See 42 U.S.C. § 801.

Plaintiffs contend that the State Defendants issued their Executive Orders and Public Health Orders without legal authority and in...