Federal court strkes down New York State religious shutdown order

A federal judge in Albany has ruled that the New York State's prohibition against certain religious gatherings during the Covid-19 pandemic violate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, which protects religious freedom.

The case is Rev. Stoos v. Cuomo, issued by Judge Sharpe of the Northern District of New York. Under the most recent public gathering orders issued by the Governor, houses of worship must operate at 25 percent indoor capacity during Phases 2 and 3. No secular, non-religious entity, must adhere to a 25 percent restriction (except for those entities that remain closed). Offices and certain retail stores were permitted to open at 50 percent capacity during Phase 2, and restaurants in Phase 3 locations can open at 50 percent capacity indoors. As Judge Sharpe sees it, the 25 percent indoor capacity limitation for houses of worship is under-inclusive. Starting on June 26, in-person graduation ceremonies can have no more than 150 people. In layperson's terms, the 25 percent restriction is narrower than that afforded to non-religious entities.This means the state must advance a compelling reason for the distinction.

The Court holds the state cannot justify the distinction. The public gatherings at issue here, including the religious and non-religious gatherings, are not significantly different from each other to justify the disparate percentages. Judge Sharpe also deems it relevant that New York City Mayor de Blasio has actively encouraged the mass protests over the death of George Floyd and systemic racism in general in recent weeks, and he has "openly discouraged religious gatherings and threatened religious worshipers with arrest if they did not adhere to the guidelines. The Governor has also sent a "clear message that mass protests are deserving of preferential treatment."

The Free Exercise Clause claim is therefore likely to succeed. This ruling is a preliminary injunction, in which the court enjoins the government from enforcing its restrictions until the case is finally resolved. "Appropriate injunctive relief here is a restraint on defendants from enforcement of any indoor gathering limitations against plaintiffs greater than imposed for Phase 2 industries and restraint from enforcement of any limitation for outdoor gatherings against plaintiffs."