DOJ files Statement of Interest in support of Mississippi Church and congregants illegally fined for attending drive-in service

[Osiris-ODS]

As some of you may recall, last Thursday (April 10, 2020), police in Greenville Mississippi surrounded a Thursday night church service being held by a local Baptist church in a drive-in format, with congregants staying in their cars, and proceeded to shut down the service and issue $500 citations to each attendee for violating the mayor's curfew order.

The church filed a federal court lawsuit against the City of Greenville in the Northern District of Mississippi, arguing that the actions of the police while enforcing the mayor's curfew deprived the church and the attendees of their Constitutional rights.

Mississippi churchgoers fined $500 while attending drive-in service

Churchgoers who attended a drive-in service at a church in Greenville, Mississippi, were fined $500 for reportedly violating a curfew order from the mayor.

wreg.com

I believe this is the first lawsuit filed by a private business/citizen against a state or local government for deprivation of Constitutional rights, so the developments and rulings in this case are going to be extremely interesting as lock-down/curfew orders across the country continue to be extended and expanded.

Today the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest in support of the church, stating that the City's actions violated the congregants' First Amendment rights.

The following points in the DOJ's Statement of Interest are particularly important to the ongoing Constitutionality debate:

I. Constitutional Rights Are Preserved During a Public Health Crisis

There is no pandemic exception, however, to the fundamental liberties the Constitution safeguards. Indeed, “individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis.” In re Abbott, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 1685929, at *6 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). These individual rights, including the protections in the Bill of Rights made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, are always in force and restrain government action.

[T]he Supreme Court has instructed courts to intervene: If a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 31 (emphasis added).

As a result, government can take extraordinary, temporary measures to protect the public. In Jacobson, the Court explained, by way of example, that “[a]n American citizen arriving at an American port” who had traveled to a region with yellow fever “may yet, in some circumstances, be held in quarantine against his will.” Id. at 29. If, however, the record establishes “beyond all question, a plain, palpable” violation of the foregoing principles, then a court must grant relief. See In re Abbott, 2020 WL 1685929, at *7.

II. The Free Exercise Clause Prohibits Unequal Treatment of Religious Individuals and Organizations

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees to all Americans the “right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine [they] desire[].” Empl’t Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990). ... “The principle that government, in pursuit of legitimate interests, cannot in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief is essential to the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause.” Id. at 543; see also Attorney General Guidelines, 82 Fed. Reg. at 49672.

The Court must determine whether the city’s distinctions between nonreligious essential services and religious essential services are truly neutral and generally applicable. ... [T]he city’s prohibition of drive-in church services, despite the inclusion of measures to reduce risk such as requiring people to remain in their cars, are neither neutral nor generally applicable. ... According to the city, “ALL businesses and industries deemed essential by state and federal orders” may continue operations, and the state has designated churches such as the one here as essential. Nevertheless, the city barred the church from holding services even if the church adheres to CDC and Mississippi COVID-19 guidelines for essential operations. ... Notably, the city appears to permit citizens to sit in a “car at a drive-in restaurant with [their] windows rolled down,” but not “at a drive-in church service with [their] windows rolled up.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1268651/download

According to the DOJ, the city’s actions in fining congregants $500 per person for attending the services, while allowing drive-in restaurants even with car windows open, violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause by singling churches out as the only essential service prohibited from operating despite compliance with CDC and state social distancing guidelines.

It will be interesting to see how this case develops -- especially in light of the possible implications of 18 U.S.C. § 242:

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law

www.justice.gov

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No one’s religious liberties were ‘violated.’

The fines solely concerned the violation of a lawful curfew, having nothing to do with religious practice; individuals were not fined because they were Christian.

Indeed, members of any gathering would be fined – if they were Jewish, if they were Muslim, or if they were attending a music event.

Because the curfew was applied equally to everyone – regardless of religion – the fines are perfectly Constitutional.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Wow. You were very quick to thumbs down and respond without reading the filings or familiarizing yourself with the law.

Nobody said anything about the fines being imposed because they were Christian. The point being made is that city's curfew order arbitrarily prohibited church services (which are designated as "essential services" by the state) while allowing the non-religious services on the state's "essential services" list.

To make it clear since you are allergic to reading and thinking:

• The state of Mississippi designates which businesses are considered "essential services"
• Churches and restaurants are designated as "essential services" by the state
• The City of Greenville's curfew order states "ALL businesses and industries deemed essential by state and federal orders” may continue operations
• The City of Greenville's curfew order permitted restaurants to operate as drive-ins, as long as CDC guidelines are followed
• The City of Greenville's curfew order prohibited Churches from operating as drive-ins, even though CDC guidelines were followed

And whether you like this or not, the law of the land in this country, as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, is as follows:

A law is not generally applicable if “in a selective manner [it] impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief,’ including by “fail[ing] to prohibit nonreligious conduct that endangers [its] interests in a similar or greater degree than . . . does the prohibited conduct.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993).

The City barred the church from holding services (essential per the state) even though it adhered to CDC and Mississippi COVID-19 guidelines and required congregants to keep their windows rolled up, but did not bar restaurants (also essential per the state) from operating even though it allowed customers to keep their windows rolled down. The law therefore violates, on its face, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has nothing to do with a particular religion, like you're suggesting.

So please try again to justify your position while considering the actual facts under the controlling law. I'll wait...

 

[busybee01]

As some of you may recall, last Thursday (April 10, 2020), police in Greenville Mississippi surrounded a Thursday night church service being held by a local Baptist church in a drive-in format, with congregants staying in their cars, and proceeded to shut down the service and issue $500 citations to each attendee for violating the mayor's curfew order.

The church filed a federal court lawsuit against the City of Greenville in the Northern District of Mississippi, arguing that the actions of the police while enforcing the mayor's curfew deprived the church and the attendees of their Constitutional rights.

Mississippi churchgoers fined $500 while attending drive-in service

Churchgoers who attended a drive-in service at a church in Greenville, Mississippi, were fined $500 for reportedly violating a curfew order from the mayor.

wreg.com

I believe this is the first lawsuit filed by a private business/citizen against a state or local government for deprivation of Constitutional rights, so the developments and rulings in this case are going to be extremely interesting as lock-down/curfew orders across the country continue to be extended and expanded.

Today the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest in support of the church, stating that the City's actions violated the congregants' First Amendment rights.

The following points in the DOJ's Statement of Interest are particularly important to the ongoing Constitutionality debate:

I. Constitutional Rights Are Preserved During a Public Health Crisis

There is no pandemic exception, however, to the fundamental liberties the Constitution safeguards. Indeed, “individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis.” In re Abbott, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 1685929, at *6 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). These individual rights, including the protections in the Bill of Rights made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, are always in force and restrain government action.

[T]he Supreme Court has instructed courts to intervene: If a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 31 (emphasis added).

As a result, government can take extraordinary, temporary measures to protect the public. In Jacobson, the Court explained, by way of example, that “[a]n American citizen arriving at an American port” who had traveled to a region with yellow fever “may yet, in some circumstances, be held in quarantine against his will.” Id. at 29. If, however, the record establishes “beyond all question, a plain, palpable” violation of the foregoing principles, then a court must grant relief. See In re Abbott, 2020 WL 1685929, at *7.

II. The Free Exercise Clause Prohibits Unequal Treatment of Religious Individuals and Organizations

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees to all Americans the “right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine [they] desire[].” Empl’t Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990). ... “The principle that government, in pursuit of legitimate interests, cannot in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief is essential to the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause.” Id. at 543; see also Attorney General Guidelines, 82 Fed. Reg. at 49672.

The Court must determine whether the city’s distinctions between nonreligious essential services and religious essential services are truly neutral and generally applicable. ... [T]he city’s prohibition of drive-in church services, despite the inclusion of measures to reduce risk such as requiring people to remain in their cars, are neither neutral nor generally applicable. ... According to the city, “ALL businesses and industries deemed essential by state and federal orders” may continue operations, and the state has designated churches such as the one here as essential. Nevertheless, the city barred the church from holding services even if the church adheres to CDC and Mississippi COVID-19 guidelines for essential operations. ... Notably, the city appears to permit citizens to sit in a “car at a drive-in restaurant with [their] windows rolled down,” but not “at a drive-in church service with [their] windows rolled up.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1268651/download

According to the DOJ, the city’s actions in fining congregants $500 per person for attending the services, while allowing drive-in restaurants even with car windows open, violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause by singling churches out as the only essential service prohibited from operating despite compliance with CDC and state social distancing guidelines.

It will be interesting to see how this case develops -- especially in light of the possible implications of 18 U.S.C. § 242:

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law

www.justice.gov

There is no constitutional right to worship when a pandemic is ongoing. Or maybe they should be quarantined and kept there for 14 days. The DOJ is putting politics ahead of people's health. Amazing how Trump decides which rights will be protected and which will not.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

As some of you may recall, last Thursday (April 10, 2020), police in Greenville Mississippi surrounded a Thursday night church service being held by a local Baptist church in a drive-in format, with congregants staying in their cars, and proceeded to shut down the service and issue $500 citations to each attendee for violating the mayor's curfew order.

The church filed a federal court lawsuit against the City of Greenville in the Northern District of Mississippi, arguing that the actions of the police while enforcing the mayor's curfew deprived the church and the attendees of their Constitutional rights.

Mississippi churchgoers fined $500 while attending drive-in service

Churchgoers who attended a drive-in service at a church in Greenville, Mississippi, were fined $500 for reportedly violating a curfew order from the mayor.

wreg.com

I believe this is the first lawsuit filed by a private business/citizen against a state or local government for deprivation of Constitutional rights, so the developments and rulings in this case are going to be extremely interesting as lock-down/curfew orders across the country continue to be extended and expanded.

Today the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest in support of the church, stating that the City's actions violated the congregants' First Amendment rights.

The following points in the DOJ's Statement of Interest are particularly important to the ongoing Constitutionality debate:

I. Constitutional Rights Are Preserved During a Public Health Crisis

There is no pandemic exception, however, to the fundamental liberties the Constitution safeguards. Indeed, “individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis.” In re Abbott, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 1685929, at *6 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). These individual rights, including the protections in the Bill of Rights made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, are always in force and restrain government action.

[T]he Supreme Court has instructed courts to intervene: If a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 31 (emphasis added).

As a result, government can take extraordinary, temporary measures to protect the public. In Jacobson, the Court explained, by way of example, that “[a]n American citizen arriving at an American port” who had traveled to a region with yellow fever “may yet, in some circumstances, be held in quarantine against his will.” Id. at 29. If, however, the record establishes “beyond all question, a plain, palpable” violation of the foregoing principles, then a court must grant relief. See In re Abbott, 2020 WL 1685929, at *7.

II. The Free Exercise Clause Prohibits Unequal Treatment of Religious Individuals and Organizations

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees to all Americans the “right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine [they] desire[].” Empl’t Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990). ... “The principle that government, in pursuit of legitimate interests, cannot in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief is essential to the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause.” Id. at 543; see also Attorney General Guidelines, 82 Fed. Reg. at 49672.

The Court must determine whether the city’s distinctions between nonreligious essential services and religious essential services are truly neutral and generally applicable. ... [T]he city’s prohibition of drive-in church services, despite the inclusion of measures to reduce risk such as requiring people to remain in their cars, are neither neutral nor generally applicable. ... According to the city, “ALL businesses and industries deemed essential by state and federal orders” may continue operations, and the state has designated churches such as the one here as essential. Nevertheless, the city barred the church from holding services even if the church adheres to CDC and Mississippi COVID-19 guidelines for essential operations. ... Notably, the city appears to permit citizens to sit in a “car at a drive-in restaurant with [their] windows rolled down,” but not “at a drive-in church service with [their] windows rolled up.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1268651/download

According to the DOJ, the city’s actions in fining congregants $500 per person for attending the services, while allowing drive-in restaurants even with car windows open, violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause by singling churches out as the only essential service prohibited from operating despite compliance with CDC and state social distancing guidelines.

It will be interesting to see how this case develops -- especially in light of the possible implications of 18 U.S.C. § 242:

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law

www.justice.gov

There is no constitutional right to worship when a pandemic is ongoing. Or maybe they should be quarantined and kept there for 14 days. The DOJ is putting politics ahead of people's health. Amazing how Trump decides which rights will be protected and which will not.

Another person who is allergic to reading. They were in their CARS with the doors closed and windows rolled up. How exactly does that fit your foolish narrative that these individuals should be "quarantined and kept there for 14 days" for staying in their car and watching something through their windshield? Should you be quarantined for 14 days for going to the grocery store? Because you're far more exposed to COVID-19 every time you do that than these people were attending this service and staying in their cars.

Good grief, this should NOT be a partisan issue, and yet you people see everything through your bitter hatred for all things Trump.

 

[Marion Morrison]

As some of you may recall, last Thursday (April 10, 2020), police in Greenville Mississippi surrounded a Thursday night church service being held by a local Baptist church in a drive-in format, with congregants staying in their cars, and proceeded to shut down the service and issue $500 citations to each attendee for violating the mayor's curfew order.

The church filed a federal court lawsuit against the City of Greenville in the Northern District of Mississippi, arguing that the actions of the police while enforcing the mayor's curfew deprived the church and the attendees of their Constitutional rights.

Mississippi churchgoers fined $500 while attending drive-in service

Churchgoers who attended a drive-in service at a church in Greenville, Mississippi, were fined $500 for reportedly violating a curfew order from the mayor.

wreg.com

I believe this is the first lawsuit filed by a private business/citizen against a state or local government for deprivation of Constitutional rights, so the developments and rulings in this case are going to be extremely interesting as lock-down/curfew orders across the country continue to be extended and expanded.

Today the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest in support of the church, stating that the City's actions violated the congregants' First Amendment rights.

The following points in the DOJ's Statement of Interest are particularly important to the ongoing Constitutionality debate:

I. Constitutional Rights Are Preserved During a Public Health Crisis

There is no pandemic exception, however, to the fundamental liberties the Constitution safeguards. Indeed, “individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis.” In re Abbott, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 1685929, at *6 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). These individual rights, including the protections in the Bill of Rights made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, are always in force and restrain government action.

[T]he Supreme Court has instructed courts to intervene: If a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 31 (emphasis added).

As a result, government can take extraordinary, temporary measures to protect the public. In Jacobson, the Court explained, by way of example, that “[a]n American citizen arriving at an American port” who had traveled to a region with yellow fever “may yet, in some circumstances, be held in quarantine against his will.” Id. at 29. If, however, the record establishes “beyond all question, a plain, palpable” violation of the foregoing principles, then a court must grant relief. See In re Abbott, 2020 WL 1685929, at *7.

II. The Free Exercise Clause Prohibits Unequal Treatment of Religious Individuals and Organizations

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees to all Americans the “right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine [they] desire[].” Empl’t Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990). ... “The principle that government, in pursuit of legitimate interests, cannot in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief is essential to the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause.” Id. at 543; see also Attorney General Guidelines, 82 Fed. Reg. at 49672.

The Court must determine whether the city’s distinctions between nonreligious essential services and religious essential services are truly neutral and generally applicable. ... [T]he city’s prohibition of drive-in church services, despite the inclusion of measures to reduce risk such as requiring people to remain in their cars, are neither neutral nor generally applicable. ... According to the city, “ALL businesses and industries deemed essential by state and federal orders” may continue operations, and the state has designated churches such as the one here as essential. Nevertheless, the city barred the church from holding services even if the church adheres to CDC and Mississippi COVID-19 guidelines for essential operations. ... Notably, the city appears to permit citizens to sit in a “car at a drive-in restaurant with [their] windows rolled down,” but not “at a drive-in church service with [their] windows rolled up.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1268651/download

According to the DOJ, the city’s actions in fining congregants $500 per person for attending the services, while allowing drive-in restaurants even with car windows open, violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause by singling churches out as the only essential service prohibited from operating despite compliance with CDC and state social distancing guidelines.

It will be interesting to see how this case develops -- especially in light of the possible implications of 18 U.S.C. § 242:

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law

www.justice.gov

There is no constitutional right to worship when a pandemic is ongoing. Or maybe they should be quarantined and kept there for 14 days. The DOJ is putting politics ahead of people's health. Amazing how Trump decides which rights will be protected and which will not.

Bubba, if you live in the US of A, you are dead wrong.

 

[busybee01]

Wow. You were very quick to thumbs down and respond without reading the filings or familiarizing yourself with the law.

Nobody said anything about the fines being imposed because they were Christian. The point being made is that city's curfew order arbitrarily prohibited church services (which are designated as "essential services" by the state) while allowing the non-religious services on the state's "essential services" list.

To make it clear since you are allergic to reading and thinking:

• The state of Mississippi designates which businesses are considered "essential services"
• Churches and restaurants are designated as "essential services" by the state
• The City of Greenville's curfew order states "ALL businesses and industries deemed essential by state and federal orders” may continue operations
• The City of Greenville's curfew order permitted restaurants to operate as drive-ins, as long as CDC guidelines are followed
• The City of Greenville's curfew order prohibited Churches from operating as drive-ins, even though CDC guidelines were followed

And whether you like this or not, the law of the land in this country, as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, is as follows:

A law is not generally applicable if “in a selective manner [it] impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief,’ including by “fail[ing] to prohibit nonreligious conduct that endangers [its] interests in a similar or greater degree than . . . does the prohibited conduct.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993).

The City barred the church from holding services (essential per the state) even though it adhered to CDC and Mississippi COVID-19 guidelines and required congregants to keep their windows rolled up, but did not bar restaurants (also essential per the state) from operating even though it allowed customers to keep their windows rolled down. The law therefore violates, on its face, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has nothing to do with a particular religion, like you're suggesting.

So please try again to justify your position while considering the actual facts under the controlling law. I'll wait...

Maybe you should acquaint yourself with facts. The laws of Mississippi are not important. The question is one that has nothing to do with federal laws. The federal government does not have the power to decide which activities are allowed and which are not. This is a matter that should be between the state and the city. This is nothing but politics on the part of Trump.

 

[Marion Morrison]

As some of you may recall, last Thursday (April 10, 2020), police in Greenville Mississippi surrounded a Thursday night church service being held by a local Baptist church in a drive-in format, with congregants staying in their cars, and proceeded to shut down the service and issue $500 citations to each attendee for violating the mayor's curfew order.

The church filed a federal court lawsuit against the City of Greenville in the Northern District of Mississippi, arguing that the actions of the police while enforcing the mayor's curfew deprived the church and the attendees of their Constitutional rights.

Mississippi churchgoers fined $500 while attending drive-in service

Churchgoers who attended a drive-in service at a church in Greenville, Mississippi, were fined $500 for reportedly violating a curfew order from the mayor.

wreg.com

I believe this is the first lawsuit filed by a private business/citizen against a state or local government for deprivation of Constitutional rights, so the developments and rulings in this case are going to be extremely interesting as lock-down/curfew orders across the country continue to be extended and expanded.

Today the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest in support of the church, stating that the City's actions violated the congregants' First Amendment rights.

The following points in the DOJ's Statement of Interest are particularly important to the ongoing Constitutionality debate:

I. Constitutional Rights Are Preserved During a Public Health Crisis

There is no pandemic exception, however, to the fundamental liberties the Constitution safeguards. Indeed, “individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis.” In re Abbott, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 1685929, at *6 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). These individual rights, including the protections in the Bill of Rights made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, are always in force and restrain government action.

[T]he Supreme Court has instructed courts to intervene: If a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 31 (emphasis added).

As a result, government can take extraordinary, temporary measures to protect the public. In Jacobson, the Court explained, by way of example, that “[a]n American citizen arriving at an American port” who had traveled to a region with yellow fever “may yet, in some circumstances, be held in quarantine against his will.” Id. at 29. If, however, the record establishes “beyond all question, a plain, palpable” violation of the foregoing principles, then a court must grant relief. See In re Abbott, 2020 WL 1685929, at *7.

II. The Free Exercise Clause Prohibits Unequal Treatment of Religious Individuals and Organizations

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees to all Americans the “right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine [they] desire[].” Empl’t Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990). ... “The principle that government, in pursuit of legitimate interests, cannot in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief is essential to the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause.” Id. at 543; see also Attorney General Guidelines, 82 Fed. Reg. at 49672.

The Court must determine whether the city’s distinctions between nonreligious essential services and religious essential services are truly neutral and generally applicable. ... [T]he city’s prohibition of drive-in church services, despite the inclusion of measures to reduce risk such as requiring people to remain in their cars, are neither neutral nor generally applicable. ... According to the city, “ALL businesses and industries deemed essential by state and federal orders” may continue operations, and the state has designated churches such as the one here as essential. Nevertheless, the city barred the church from holding services even if the church adheres to CDC and Mississippi COVID-19 guidelines for essential operations. ... Notably, the city appears to permit citizens to sit in a “car at a drive-in restaurant with [their] windows rolled down,” but not “at a drive-in church service with [their] windows rolled up.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1268651/download

According to the DOJ, the city’s actions in fining congregants $500 per person for attending the services, while allowing drive-in restaurants even with car windows open, violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause by singling churches out as the only essential service prohibited from operating despite compliance with CDC and state social distancing guidelines.

It will be interesting to see how this case develops -- especially in light of the possible implications of 18 U.S.C. § 242:

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law

www.justice.gov

There is no constitutional right to worship when a pandemic is ongoing. Or maybe they should be quarantined and kept there for 14 days. The DOJ is putting politics ahead of people's health. Amazing how Trump decides which rights will be protected and which will not.

The DOJ is putting the Constitution and Federal law ahead of fascist municipalities abusing their authority.

I notice you seem to not like that. Why?

Shouldn't every citizen in the US be as free as those in other localities?

 

[busybee01]

As some of you may recall, last Thursday (April 10, 2020), police in Greenville Mississippi surrounded a Thursday night church service being held by a local Baptist church in a drive-in format, with congregants staying in their cars, and proceeded to shut down the service and issue $500 citations to each attendee for violating the mayor's curfew order.

The church filed a federal court lawsuit against the City of Greenville in the Northern District of Mississippi, arguing that the actions of the police while enforcing the mayor's curfew deprived the church and the attendees of their Constitutional rights.

Mississippi churchgoers fined $500 while attending drive-in service

Churchgoers who attended a drive-in service at a church in Greenville, Mississippi, were fined $500 for reportedly violating a curfew order from the mayor.

wreg.com

I believe this is the first lawsuit filed by a private business/citizen against a state or local government for deprivation of Constitutional rights, so the developments and rulings in this case are going to be extremely interesting as lock-down/curfew orders across the country continue to be extended and expanded.

Today the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest in support of the church, stating that the City's actions violated the congregants' First Amendment rights.

The following points in the DOJ's Statement of Interest are particularly important to the ongoing Constitutionality debate:

I. Constitutional Rights Are Preserved During a Public Health Crisis

There is no pandemic exception, however, to the fundamental liberties the Constitution safeguards. Indeed, “individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis.” In re Abbott, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 1685929, at *6 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). These individual rights, including the protections in the Bill of Rights made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, are always in force and restrain government action.

[T]he Supreme Court has instructed courts to intervene: If a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 31 (emphasis added).

As a result, government can take extraordinary, temporary measures to protect the public. In Jacobson, the Court explained, by way of example, that “[a]n American citizen arriving at an American port” who had traveled to a region with yellow fever “may yet, in some circumstances, be held in quarantine against his will.” Id. at 29. If, however, the record establishes “beyond all question, a plain, palpable” violation of the foregoing principles, then a court must grant relief. See In re Abbott, 2020 WL 1685929, at *7.

II. The Free Exercise Clause Prohibits Unequal Treatment of Religious Individuals and Organizations

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees to all Americans the “right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine [they] desire[].” Empl’t Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990). ... “The principle that government, in pursuit of legitimate interests, cannot in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief is essential to the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause.” Id. at 543; see also Attorney General Guidelines, 82 Fed. Reg. at 49672.

The Court must determine whether the city’s distinctions between nonreligious essential services and religious essential services are truly neutral and generally applicable. ... [T]he city’s prohibition of drive-in church services, despite the inclusion of measures to reduce risk such as requiring people to remain in their cars, are neither neutral nor generally applicable. ... According to the city, “ALL businesses and industries deemed essential by state and federal orders” may continue operations, and the state has designated churches such as the one here as essential. Nevertheless, the city barred the church from holding services even if the church adheres to CDC and Mississippi COVID-19 guidelines for essential operations. ... Notably, the city appears to permit citizens to sit in a “car at a drive-in restaurant with [their] windows rolled down,” but not “at a drive-in church service with [their] windows rolled up.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1268651/download

According to the DOJ, the city’s actions in fining congregants $500 per person for attending the services, while allowing drive-in restaurants even with car windows open, violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause by singling churches out as the only essential service prohibited from operating despite compliance with CDC and state social distancing guidelines.

It will be interesting to see how this case develops -- especially in light of the possible implications of 18 U.S.C. § 242:

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law

www.justice.gov

There is no constitutional right to worship when a pandemic is ongoing. Or maybe they should be quarantined and kept there for 14 days. The DOJ is putting politics ahead of people's health. Amazing how Trump decides which rights will be protected and which will not.

Another person who is allergic to reading. They were in their CARS with the doors closed and windows rolled up. How exactly does that fit your foolish narrative that these individuals should be "quarantined and kept there for 14 days" for staying in their car and watching something through their windshield? Should you be quarantined for 14 days for going to the grocery store? Because you're far more exposed to COVID-19 every time you do that than these people were attending this service and staying in their cars.

Good grief, this should NOT be a partisan issue, and yet you people see everything through your bitter hatred for all things Trump.

Donald Trump and Republicans are turning this into a partisan issue. That is why the DOJ is interfering. Church services are not a essential service as services can be streamed online. The fact that they are allowed showed this. Gun shops are the same thing. They are not essential services but are still allowed. Yet a woman wanting a abortion has seen that right done away with.

 

[busybee01]

As some of you may recall, last Thursday (April 10, 2020), police in Greenville Mississippi surrounded a Thursday night church service being held by a local Baptist church in a drive-in format, with congregants staying in their cars, and proceeded to shut down the service and issue $500 citations to each attendee for violating the mayor's curfew order.

The church filed a federal court lawsuit against the City of Greenville in the Northern District of Mississippi, arguing that the actions of the police while enforcing the mayor's curfew deprived the church and the attendees of their Constitutional rights.

Mississippi churchgoers fined $500 while attending drive-in service

Churchgoers who attended a drive-in service at a church in Greenville, Mississippi, were fined $500 for reportedly violating a curfew order from the mayor.

wreg.com

I believe this is the first lawsuit filed by a private business/citizen against a state or local government for deprivation of Constitutional rights, so the developments and rulings in this case are going to be extremely interesting as lock-down/curfew orders across the country continue to be extended and expanded.

Today the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest in support of the church, stating that the City's actions violated the congregants' First Amendment rights.

The following points in the DOJ's Statement of Interest are particularly important to the ongoing Constitutionality debate:

I. Constitutional Rights Are Preserved During a Public Health Crisis

There is no pandemic exception, however, to the fundamental liberties the Constitution safeguards. Indeed, “individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis.” In re Abbott, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 1685929, at *6 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). These individual rights, including the protections in the Bill of Rights made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, are always in force and restrain government action.

[T]he Supreme Court has instructed courts to intervene: If a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 31 (emphasis added).

As a result, government can take extraordinary, temporary measures to protect the public. In Jacobson, the Court explained, by way of example, that “[a]n American citizen arriving at an American port” who had traveled to a region with yellow fever “may yet, in some circumstances, be held in quarantine against his will.” Id. at 29. If, however, the record establishes “beyond all question, a plain, palpable” violation of the foregoing principles, then a court must grant relief. See In re Abbott, 2020 WL 1685929, at *7.

II. The Free Exercise Clause Prohibits Unequal Treatment of Religious Individuals and Organizations

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees to all Americans the “right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine [they] desire[].” Empl’t Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990). ... “The principle that government, in pursuit of legitimate interests, cannot in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief is essential to the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause.” Id. at 543; see also Attorney General Guidelines, 82 Fed. Reg. at 49672.

The Court must determine whether the city’s distinctions between nonreligious essential services and religious essential services are truly neutral and generally applicable. ... [T]he city’s prohibition of drive-in church services, despite the inclusion of measures to reduce risk such as requiring people to remain in their cars, are neither neutral nor generally applicable. ... According to the city, “ALL businesses and industries deemed essential by state and federal orders” may continue operations, and the state has designated churches such as the one here as essential. Nevertheless, the city barred the church from holding services even if the church adheres to CDC and Mississippi COVID-19 guidelines for essential operations. ... Notably, the city appears to permit citizens to sit in a “car at a drive-in restaurant with [their] windows rolled down,” but not “at a drive-in church service with [their] windows rolled up.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1268651/download

According to the DOJ, the city’s actions in fining congregants $500 per person for attending the services, while allowing drive-in restaurants even with car windows open, violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause by singling churches out as the only essential service prohibited from operating despite compliance with CDC and state social distancing guidelines.

It will be interesting to see how this case develops -- especially in light of the possible implications of 18 U.S.C. § 242:

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law

www.justice.gov

There is no constitutional right to worship when a pandemic is ongoing. Or maybe they should be quarantined and kept there for 14 days. The DOJ is putting politics ahead of people's health. Amazing how Trump decides which rights will be protected and which will not.

The DOJ is putting the Constitution and Federal law ahead of fascist municipalities abusing their authority.

I notice you seem to not like that. Why?

Shouldn't every citizen in the US be as free as those in other localities?

You are so m8uch bullshit. You and Trump are the fascists. This is a state issue not a federal issue. The DOJ is playing politics and so are you. This has nothing to do with freedom. There is no reason that you cannot do it online until the crisis is either over or reduced.