Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: US Rep. Krishnamoorthi wants Census review of faulty ACS data
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Huge construction project at the Statehouse
Posted in:
* United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, judges Easterbrook, Kanne and Hamilton…
Two churches sued the Governor of Illinois after he issued an executive order limiting to ten the number of persons who could attend any particular religious service during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The district court denied the churches’ motion for a preliminary injunction. By the time the appeal was argued in June 2020, the Governor had rescinded his order and there was no longer any limit on the number of persons who could participate in religious ceremonies. We held that the possibility of restoring the original order, should the pandemic become more serious, meant that the case is not moot, but that the order did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Plaintiffs asked the district court to issue a permanent injunction notwithstanding our decision. They observed that the Supreme Court recently has made the law more favorable to them by concluding that states must treat religious bodies at least as well as any secular comparator, not just as well as the most similar secular organization. The district court did not reach the merits, ruling instead that the litigation is moot. The judge expressed confidence that limits on attendance will not be reinstated. The churches have filed a second appeal.
The district court’s decision is questionable because it is inconsistent with our opinion, plus the further reason that the Governor continues to say that orders may be amended as the pandemic continues. With the Omicron variant spreading, more people have COVID-19 now than ever before. Trying to predict what executive orders may be adopted in response to which potential changes in the course of the disease is a mug’s game and not a firm ground for resolving this case.
Still, it does not follow that plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction. More than 19 months have passed since they were last subject to an attendance limit, and the Governor has not suggested that another is likely. A legal conclusion that a rescinded order violated the Constitution would not entitle anyone to an injunction. So we held in Cassell v. Snyders, 990 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2021), about the very subject now before us - whether churches are entitled to an injunction forbidding the Governor of Illinois to reinstate the sort of capacity limit that was in force for about ten weeks ending in spring 2020. In addition to stressing that an injunction is a discretionary remedy, which new developments may make unnecessary (if not imprudent), we observed that the Governor likely will take account of legal developments when issuing any new orders. A federal court ought to give state officials the respect of predicting that they will accept and follow the Supreme Court’s analysis. Just as in Cassell, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in turning down plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief.
The complaint requests damages, but that prospect does not keep this case alive. The only defendant is the Governor, in his official capacity. Will v. Michigan Department of State Police holds that 42 U.S.C. §1983, on which this suit is based, does not allow awards of damages against states-and that official-capacity suits against state agents are suits against the states themselves. It follows that damages are unavailable.
And if we were to ignore the “official capacity” language that the complaints used to describe Governor Pritzker’s status, the churches still could not obtain damages, because the Governor would be entitled to qualified immunity. Recall that the Governor won on the merits on the first appeal, which makes it impossible to describe as “clearly established” in the spring of 2020 a rule that a capacity limit on religious services during a pandemic violates the Constitution. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn was not decided until November 25, 2020, six months after the Governor rescinded the order imposing capacity limits on in-person religious events, and Tandon, decided on April 9, 2021, shows that there were (and are) still debatable issues about how public officials may regulate religious gatherings during a pandemic.
If Illinois imposes an objectionable order in response to new developments in the pandemic, the churches may file a new suit. But this suit is over.
“A mug’s game” was a nice touch.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 14, 22 @ 10:52 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: US Rep. Krishnamoorthi wants Census review of faulty ACS data
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Huge construction project at the Statehouse
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
So -that’s- where “mugggles” comes from!
Comment by lake county democrat Friday, Jan 14, 22 @ 10:58 am
==But this suit is over.==
” What? Over? Did you say ‘over’? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?…”
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Friday, Jan 14, 22 @ 10:59 am
Now you put me in a bad mood because you reminded me that because NY let people go to groceries stores they had to let people be in Church, which is one of the stupidest arguments anyone could ever make. If governments don’t stop people from risking exposure TO GET FOOD, that’s somehow comparable to being in the same room as others during worship. Utter BS.
Comment by Perrid Friday, Jan 14, 22 @ 11:06 am
Mugs games have become an in thing in today’s America. We’re just now learning what they are officially called.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Jan 14, 22 @ 11:11 am
Seems like the govs response to omicron is reason enough actually to dismiss the case not hear it. If he were disposed to put this order back surely now would have been the time for it given the excessive numbers and hospital crush. But he has not. I think he figures most people can weather the storm because they have the tools (i.e. vaccines or prior infection) to withstand it.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Jan 14, 22 @ 11:13 am
Perrid, same argument was made about liquor stores. Led to the amusing comeback if you can’t tell the difference between a church service and a visit to the liquor store you either have a bad church or a bad liquor store.
One big diff is time. It would be a rare beer or wine enthusiast who will spend a couple hours marveling at the goods before making a purchase.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Jan 14, 22 @ 11:16 am
Perrid - Church services are food for the soul.
Cermak - you are correct unless one is a parishioner at The First Baptist Bar and Grill, the only church in the bible belt that smells like whiskey mill, and the communion wine in there is always chilled.
Comment by Captain Obvious Friday, Jan 14, 22 @ 11:20 am
=== Perrid - Church services are food for the soul.===
The Sermon on the Mount kinda blows away the idea of a needed “Churching” to feel close to God.
I’d read Matthew. It’s found there.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 14, 22 @ 11:22 am
Sorry still not mill.
Comment by Captain Obvious Friday, Jan 14, 22 @ 11:23 am
Didn’t say they were the only food for the soul Willie, or the only way to feel close to God, lighten up dude, it’s Friday. I haven’t been to a Sunday service myself in decades, but many others find them comforting. To each his own.
Comment by Captain Obvious Friday, Jan 14, 22 @ 2:43 pm
It wasn’t “Obvious” what you were saying, lol
Happy Friday.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 14, 22 @ 2:55 pm