Introduction

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments across the United States implemented various public health measures to curb the spread of the virus. One such measure was the prohibition of in-person instruction in educational institutions. The case of COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, Attorney General Daniel Cameron, ex rel. DANVILLE CHRISTIAN ACADEMY, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ANDREW G. BESHEAR presents a significant judicial examination of the balance between public health directives and constitutional protections of religious freedoms.

Summary of the Judgment

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed an appeal filed by Governor Andrew G. Beshear of Kentucky against a preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The injunction had barred the enforcement of Executive Order 2020-969, which prohibited in-person instruction at all public and private elementary and secondary schools in Kentucky, including religious schools, amid a surge in COVID-19 cases.

The plaintiffs argued that the executive order violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, as well as the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). However, the Sixth Circuit upheld the Governor's position, granting a stay on the preliminary injunction. The appellate court reasoned that the executive order was neutral and of general applicability, thereby not targeting any religious practices and thus did not violate constitutional protections.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment relied heavily on several key precedents to substantiate its findings:

• CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. v. HIALEAH: Established that generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious practices are permissible.
• Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith: Held that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
• Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo: Discussed the balance between public health measures and religious practices, distinguishing between targeted restrictions and generally applicable ones.
• Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak: Emphasized the importance of scrutinizing why certain categories are subject to restrictions.
• Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru: Clarified the limits of the ministerial exception in relation to secular laws.

These cases collectively provided a framework for assessing whether the executive order unduly burdened religious freedoms or was an overreach violating constitutional provisions.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied a de novo review to the district court's legal conclusions, emphasizing that Executive Order 2020-969 was neutral and of general applicability. This neutrality meant that the order did not specifically target religious institutions but applied uniformly to all public and private schools, irrespective of their religious affiliations.

The appellate court dissected the executive order's language, noting that while it exempted "small group in-person targeted services" and "private schools conducted in a home solely for members of that household," it did not provide similar exemptions for other types of institutions, including religious ones. This absence indicated that the order was not selectively restrictive towards religious schools.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that incidental burdens on religious practices do not trigger strict scrutiny unless the law explicitly targets religious activities. Since the executive order was crafted to address public health concerns in a broad and inclusive manner, it fell within the boundaries of permissible governmental action under the First Amendment.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the principle that public health measures, when applied broadly and without targeting specific groups, are constitutionally permissible even if they incidentally impact religious institutions. For future cases, this sets a precedent that neutral, generally applicable laws designed to address public health crises will likely withstand challenges based on religious freedom claims.

Additionally, the decision underscores the judiciary's deference to executive judgments in matters of public health, recognizing the expertise and authority of elected officials in managing state responses to emergencies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit's decision to uphold the preliminary injunction against enforcing Executive Order 2020-969 against religious schools underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining a balance between public health imperatives and constitutional freedoms. By affirming the neutrality and general applicability of the executive order, the court reinforced that when government actions are designed to address widespread issues without singling out specific groups, they align with constitutional mandates.

This case exemplifies the judiciary's role in scrutinizing the intent and application of governmental measures, ensuring that while public health is safeguarded, individual and institutional freedoms are not unduly compromised. As the nation continues to navigate the complexities of pandemic responses, this precedent serves as a guiding framework for assessing the constitutionality of similar actions in the future.