Osiris-ODS
Diamond Member
- Jan 22, 2019
- 3,664
- 3,330
- 1,940
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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
Last edited: