SCOTUS Clears Way for Worship

On February 5th, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that California (CA) officials cannot bar churches from holding indoor services amid the COVID pandemic.  They issued orders siding with churches that had protested the state banning indoor services (but not agreeing to strike down prohibitions on singing and chanting during indoor services), and not blocking CA from imposing 25% capacity restrictions in areas deemed Tier 1 on a scale of virus transmission.

The case drew four different opinions from the nine person SCOTUS:

1. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “federal courts owe significant deference to politically accountable officials with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”  “The state has concluded, for example, that singing indoors poses a heightened risk of transmitting COVID-19.  I see no basis in this record for overriding that aspect of the state public health framework,” he added.  “At the same time, the state’s present determination— that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero— appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.”

2. Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito said California “has openly imposed more stringent regulations on religious institutions than on many businesses” since the arrival of COVID-19.  While California forbade any kind of indoor worship in most of the state, it allowed most retail operations to have 25% occupancy indoors and other businesses 50% or more occupancy.  Justice Gorsuch added, “When a state so obviously targets religion for differential treatment, our job becomes that much clearer.”

3. Justice Amy Barrett, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote in a concurring opinion that she largely agreed with Justice Gorsuch, but didn’t believe the court should block the prohibition on singing and chanting.  “The applicants bore the burden of establishing their entitlement to relief from the singing ban.  In my view, they did not carry that burden— at least not on this record.  As the case comes to us, it remains unclear whether the singing ban applies across the board (and thus constitutes a neutral and generally applicable law) or else favors certain sectors (and thus triggers more searching review),” she wrote.  “Of course, if a chorister can sing in a Hollywood studio but not in her church, California’s regulations cannot be viewed as neutral.  But the record is uncertain, and the decisions below unfortunately shed little light on the issue.”

4. The three Democrat-appointed justices banded together in a dissenting opinion led by Justice Elena Kagan, who said justices on the court “are not scientists” and don’t “know much about public health policy.”  “Yet today the court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic.  The court orders California to weaken its restrictions on public gatherings by making a special exception for worship services.  The majority does so even though the state’s policies treat worship just as favorably as secular activities (including political assemblies) that, according to medical evidence, pose the same risk of COVID transmission,” Kagan alleged.  “Under the court’s injunction, the state must instead treat worship services like secular activities that pose a much lesser danger.  That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.”

The ruling dealt with cases from Harvest Rock Church and South Bay United Pentecostal Church— two churches that sought relief from CA Gov. Gavin Newsom’s harsh restrictions imposed through a tiered system.

In an emailed statement, Newsom’s press secretary Daniel Lopez told The Epoch Times: “The state of California has taken necessary steps throughout the pandemic to protect Californians from COVID-19 and prevent our health care system from being overwhelmed by the disease, particularly during the recent surge.  While the Supreme Court enjoined the state’s restriction on indoor worship services in counties where COVID-19 is widespread, the Court left in place public health measures imposed to protect worshippers, their families, and the communities in which they live.  We will continue to enforce the restrictions the Supreme Court left in place and, after reviewing the decision, and revise guidelines for worship services to continue to protect the lives of Californians.”!

To be clear: God has not granted civic rulers authority over the doctrine, practice, or polity of the Church.  It has never been the prerogative of civil government to order, modify, forbid, or mandate worship.  The worship of Christ’s Church is not subject to Caesar— rather, Caesar (himself) is subject to God.  Jesus affirmed that principle when He was brought before Pilate and told the Roman Governor: “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above.” (John 19:11)  And because Christ is Head of the Church, Ecclesiastical matters pertain to His Kingdom— not Caesar’s.  Jesus drew a stark distinction between those two kingdoms when He said: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:17)  Our Lord (Himself) always rendered to Caesar what was Caesar’s— but He never offered to Caesar what belongs solely to God.  Accordingly, the honor that we rightly owe our earthly governmental authorities does not include compliance— when such officials attempt to subvert sound doctrine, corrupt Biblical morality, exercise Ecclesiastical authority, or usurp Christ as Head of the Church … in any other way.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel