New Jersey state officials on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to side against a Catholic church and synagogue suing the state for its coronavirus restrictions.
In a brief referencing recent wins that the high court handed to houses of worship in New York and California, State Solicitor Jeremy Feigenbaum argued that the New Jersey case was radically different and that to issue the church and synagogue a temporary injunction, as it did to the other churches, would do “profound” damage to the state, “especially in the middle of the second wave.”
“Study after study, and expert after expert, confirm that gatherings of this kind contribute to COVID-19’s spread,” Feigenbaum wrote, adding that “without capacity limits to ensure spacing indoors, and without requiring the use of masks, the state has few tools left.”
The case arose in April after Rabbi Yisrael Knopfler and Father Kevin Robinson of Saint Anthony of Padua Church filed complaints against Gov. Phil Murphy in what became a series of escalating court battles. When the original case was filed, New Jersey had some of the tightest coronavirus restrictions, as well as some of the highest numbers of cases.
In their appeal to the court, Knopfler and Robinson criticize Murphy’s gathering limits on churches, which are currently set at 25%, as well as his mask mandate, arguing that its imposition on churches violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause. The two submitted their petition to Justice Samuel Alito the same day that the court issued a temporary injunction to the New York churches and synagogues.
In New Jersey’s response, Feigenbaum singled out Knopfler and Robinson’s opposition to the state mask mandate as the foremost factor differentiating the case from the New York case, where both Catholic and Jewish leaders were already encouraging mask-wearing. And, citing the decision the court made in favor of a network of California churches Thursday, Feigenbaum recommended that churches act similarly in this case and throw the case back to an appeals court — but without issuing an injunction.
“Because this case requires assessing meaningfully distinct orders and facts, this court should not resolve the issues presented here in the first instance,” he wrote, adding that the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers New Jersey, should have another chance to look at the case in light of the New York decision.
The 3rd Circuit Court, like every other court in this case, has already ruled against Knopfler and Robinson.
Feigenbaum also emphasized that the state has no intention to provide a religious liberty carve-out for religious gatherings where congregants refuse to wear masks.
“New Jersey acknowledges and regrets the sacrifice that applicants are making, but it only asks for such sacrifice as is necessary during a once-in-a-century global pandemic,” he wrote in reference to mask-wearing.
The Supreme Court’s attitude toward church coronavirus restrictions in the past week has shifted dramatically. The church on Nov. 25 issued its first-ever injunction to the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America, an orthodox Jewish organization. On Thursday, it vacated a California court decision against Harvest Rock church under similar circumstances.
Both cases were decided after the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett gave conservatives a definite majority on the court.
The court previously rejected two cases from a California and a Nevada church this summer, with Chief Justice John Roberts as the swing vote. At the time, Roberts wrote that he was not comfortable issuing a temporary injunction, given the ever-changing terms of coronavirus restrictions.
The court in the past few weeks has received a series of requests from more churches seeking injunctive relief, including one from Calvary Chapel Dayton, the Nevada church which it rejected in July. The court is expected to reach a decision in many of these cases before Christmas.
