Attorneys argued on behalf of a Nevada church suffering unequal treatment under the state’s arbitrary and restrictive COVID-19 guidelines on Tuesday. Alliance Defending Freedom represented Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak’s executive orders have been unconstitutional because they allow casinos and parks to operate at higher capacities than houses of worship.
The case is significant in light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s unconstitutional restrictions on houses of worship, and in light of the fact that the high court also just tossed back a similar case to a lower court.
In an email to me, Ryan Tucker, ADF senior counsel and director of the Center for Christian Ministries, explained why the group argued this lawsuit. “Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley has endured discriminatory treatment for nearly ten months now. The ‘new normal’ should never include an infringement on our constitutionally protected freedoms,” he said. “Nevada treats big box retailers, cannabis stores, and casinos better than churches. As the Supreme Court recently questioned, why can people gather at places the governor deems essential, but churches who follow all the safety precautions required of ‘essential’ businesses and even more be subject to worse treatment? The virus doesn’t discriminate and neither should the government. That is exactly what the First Amendment forbids.”
If this case sounds familiar to you, that’s because Calvary Chapel has been fighting for fair COVID-19 restrictions since the summer. Earlier this year, the church submitted an emergency request for an injunction from the overbearing executive orders to the Supreme Court. It asked the Supreme Court again to stop these restrictions while in litigation. In one of the first requests for relief during the pandemic, the court decided not to grant it, although Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
Justice Alito’s righteous indignation was obvious. “The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine, or to engage in any other game of chance,” he wrote, continuing, “But the Governor of Nevada apparently has different priorities … We have a duty to defend the Constitution, and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility.” Alito also mentioned this exact case in a recent speech for the Federalist Society that stirred up controversy.
Gorsuch wasn’t happy that the court declined to grant injunctive relief either. In his dissent, he excoriated Nevada’s governor for caring more about craps than church. “In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion,” he wrote. “The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.”
The 9th Circuit will hopefully rule with the Supreme Court’s latest decisions on houses of worship and COVID-19 restrictions in mind, but it should be obvious by now: No church or synagogue should have had to file a lawsuit against a political official for the protection of rights already guaranteed by the Constitution. It’s an egregious violation and a waste of resources.
Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.
