6th Circuit Establishes Equal Treatment for Religious and Secular Gatherings under the Free Exercise Clause in COVID-19 Restrictions

Introduction

In the landmark case of Theodore Joseph Roberts, Randall Daniel, and Sally O'Boyle v. s and all others similarly situated, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed the constitutionality of COVID-19 related restrictions on mass gatherings, specifically targeting faith-based activities. The plaintiffs, congregants of Maryville Baptist Church, challenged Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear's executive orders that prohibited in-person worship services during the pandemic. The core issue at hand was whether such restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and equal protection principles under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit, in a per curiam opinion issued on May 9, 2020, granted an injunction pending appeal that barred the enforcement of Governor Beshear’s orders prohibiting in-person worship services. The court held that the restrictions likely violated the Free Exercise Clause by discriminating against religious gatherings while permitting a wide array of secular activities. The Court emphasized that the executive orders lacked sufficient justification and failed to apply the principles of strict scrutiny required for laws burdening fundamental rights. Consequently, the court ordered that the Maryville Baptist Church could conduct worship services in adherence with public health guidelines, paralleling those imposed on secular entities.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced several key precedents to frame its analysis. Notably:

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990): This case established the standard that generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious practices do not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993): Here, the Supreme Court held that laws targeting specific religious practices are unconstitutional as they violate the Free Exercise Clause.
Tenafly Eruv Ass'n v. Borough of Tenafly, 309 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2002): This case dealt with the arbitrary restrictions on religious practices, reinforcing the necessity for neutrality in laws affecting religious activities.
JACOBSON v. MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11 (1905): A seminal case affirming the state's authority to enact health and safety measures under its police powers.

These precedents collectively underscore the necessity for government actions to avoid religious discrimination and uphold the principles of neutrality and equal treatment.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied a strict scrutiny standard, the highest level of judicial review, as the executive orders in question directly burdened the fundamental right to free exercise of religion. The core of the Court's reasoning was twofold:

Lack of General Applicability: The Governor's orders specifically enumerated "faith-based mass gatherings" as prohibited while explicitly allowing a diverse array of secular activities. This selective prohibition indicated a lack of neutrality, suggesting that religious assemblies were unfairly targeted.
Insufficient Justification: While acknowledging the Governor's compelling interest in public health, the Court found that the executive orders did not represent the least restrictive means to achieve the intended health objectives. The existence of numerous exceptions for secular entities further undermined the argument that the restrictions were necessary and proportionate.

Additionally, the Court noted the inconsistency in applying social distancing measures across different spheres of public life. By permitting activities deemed similar in risk, such as gatherings in law firms or supermarkets, without imposing equivalent restrictions on religious services, the Governor's orders failed to maintain the requisite governmental neutrality.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for the interplay between public health measures and religious freedoms. Firstly, it sets a precedent that government restrictions on religious gatherings must be meticulously scrutinized to ensure they do not constitute discriminatory practices. Secondly, the ruling emphasizes that when enacting public health directives, authorities must apply standards uniformly across both secular and religious domains to withstand constitutional challenges.

Moving forward, policymakers must design public health interventions that harmonize the protection of public welfare with the preservation of constitutional rights. This case serves as a caution against crafting regulations that inadvertently, or otherwise, marginalize specific groups based on religious affiliations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Free Exercise Clause: Part of the First Amendment, it protects individuals' rights to practice their religion without government interference.

Strict Scrutiny: The highest level of judicial review applied to laws affecting fundamental rights. The government must show that the law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

Neutrality in Law: Laws must not favor or disfavor any particular religion or belief system; they should apply equally to all individuals regardless of their religious affiliations.

Least Restrictive Means: The idea that when the government restricts a fundamental right, it must use the least restrictive method possible to achieve its objective.

Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit's decision in Roberts v. Beshear marks a pivotal moment in the adjudication of religious freedoms amid public health crises. By scrutinizing the Governor's executive orders through the lens of constitutional protections, the Court reinforced the imperative of treating religious and secular activities with equal consideration. This judgment not only upholds the sanctity of the Free Exercise Clause but also serves as a guiding framework for balancing individual rights with collective safety in emergency situations.