Introduction

The case of CHARLES CLARK, III; SOLID ROCK BAPTIST CHURCH, New Jersey not-for-profit corporation; BIBLE BAPTIST CHURCH OF CLEMENTON, New Jersey not-for-profit corporation; CHARLES CLARK, JR.; PASTOR ANDREW REESE v. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, adjudicated in the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit on November 28, 2022, presents a pivotal examination of the mootness doctrine in the context of religious freedom challenges during public health emergencies.

The appellants, comprising two New Jersey-based Christian congregations and their pastors, contested the state's COVID-19 pandemic-related restrictions that limited in-person religious gatherings. The crux of the dispute centered on whether these restrictions violated the First Amendment by favoring secular activities over religious worship. However, the court ultimately deemed the case moot, asserting that the specific restrictions in question had been rescinded and were unlikely to be reinstated.

Summary of the Judgment

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision to dismiss the case as moot. The court reasoned that the executive orders imposing restrictions on in-person religious gatherings had been rescinded over two years prior to the appeal, and there was no reasonable expectation that such restrictions would recur. Consequently, there was no actionable controversy remaining, rendering judicial intervention unnecessary.

The majority held that because the challenged orders were no longer in effect and the circumstances that necessitated them had significantly changed, the plaintiffs lacked a live controversy. They further emphasized that the government's alteration of its stance, supported by evolving public health data and Supreme Court precedents, sufficiently demonstrated that the restrictions on religious gatherings were unlikely to be reimposed.

Conversely, a dissenting opinion argued that the case should remain justiciable. The dissent highlighted the potential for future emergencies that might necessitate similar restrictions and contended that the government's unilateral cessation of the offending conduct did not meet the stringent standards required to deem the case moot.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents that shaped the court's decision on mootness and the application of the First Amendment:

• County of Butler v. Governor of Pennsylvania, 8 F.4th 226 (3d Cir. 2021): Established that challenges to defunct emergency measures are moot if changes render the original controversy non-actionable.
• Hartnett v. Pennsylvania State Education Association, 963 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2020): Discussed the requirements for a live controversy and the burden of proof in mootness claims.
• Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S.Ct. 63 (2020): Highlighted strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause when governmental regulations favor secular over religious activities.
• Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S.Ct. 1294 (2021): Reinforced the necessity for governmental neutrality towards religious practices during public health emergencies.
• West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S.Ct. 2587 (2022): Clarified the burden on the government to demonstrate that ceased actions are unlikely to recur, especially under the doctrine of voluntary cessation.

These precedents collectively informed the court's approach to determining mootness, emphasizing the need for a clear demonstration that the contentious restrictions were not only rescinded but also unlikely to be reinstated under similar future circumstances.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on the principles of mootness and justiciability under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The key considerations included:

• Definition of Mootness: A case becomes moot when the underlying issue has been resolved or circumstances have changed such that the court can no longer provide effective relief.
• Voluntary Cessation Doctrine: This doctrine allows courts to dismiss cases when a defendant has voluntarily ceased the challenged behavior, provided there is no likelihood of recurrence.
• Burden of Proof: In cases of voluntary cessation, the defendant (in this case, the State) bears the heavy burden of proving that the challenged behavior is unlikely to recur.

Applying these principles, the court examined the timeline and evolution of New Jersey's executive orders. Governor Murphy's successive orders progressively relaxed restrictions on religious gatherings, culminating in the complete removal of prior limitations by May 2021. The court noted significant changes in the public health landscape, including advancements in COVID-19 mitigation strategies, widespread vaccination efforts, and a marked decline in infection rates, which collectively diminished the likelihood of reinstating similar restrictions.

Moreover, the court referenced Supreme Court decisions that mandated strict scrutiny for any governmental regulations that implicitly favored secular activities over religious practices. The combination of these evolved legal standards and the State's evidence of changing circumstances reinforced the determination that the case lacked the necessary controversy to warrant ongoing judicial consideration.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications on future cases that challenge governmental restrictions on religious practices, especially those instituted during public health emergencies:

• Clarification of Mootness Standards: Reinforces the stringent requirements for maintaining a live controversy, particularly under the voluntary cessation doctrine.
• Precedential Guidance: Serves as a reference point for courts assessing similar challenges, emphasizing the importance of actual, ongoing infringement over potential future scenarios.
• Balance Between Public Health and Religious Freedom: Highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring that emergency powers do not disproportionately infringe upon constitutional protections without clear, ongoing justification.

Future litigants contemplating challenging temporary restrictions must carefully consider the longevity and potential recurrence of the restrictions, as well as the evolving legal landscape, to assess the viability of their claims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Third Circuit's affirmation of mootness in Clark v. Governor of New Jersey underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that courts address only live, ongoing disputes where their intervention can effectuate meaningful relief. By meticulously applying the principles of mootness and evaluating the improbability of reinstating the contested restrictions, the court effectively balanced the imperatives of religious freedom against the dynamic realities of public health governance.

This decision serves as a crucial reminder that challenges to governmental actions must be both timely and grounded in persisting controversies to merit judicial consideration. It also highlights the evolving interplay between emergency powers and constitutional protections, setting a clear precedent for similar cases in the future.

As public health landscapes continue to evolve and potential emergencies arise, both governmental bodies and religious institutions must remain vigilant in understanding the legal thresholds that govern the enactment and contestation of such measures. The court's reasoning in this case provides a framework for navigating these complex intersections of law, public policy, and individual rights.