Court rules against Cooper executive order restricting churches

May 5, 2020 — A woman holds a sign at the fifth ReOpen NC protest which reads "Church is essential." Gov. Roy Cooper has drawn a steady stream of criticism for restrictions on worship in "phase 1" of his extended stay-at-home-order. Photo credit: A.P. Dillon, North State Journal

RALEIGH — A lawsuit filed over restrictions on worship in Gov. Roy Cooper’s executive orders and “phase one” plan was heard in federal court on Friday. The churches prevailed, the court granting a temporary restraining order.

The suit against Cooper challenged five of his executive orders, including the most recent order,  as unconstitutional. A hearing has been set for May 29 at 11 a.m.. to hear arguments on the preliminary injunction requested by the plaintiffs in the suit.

Advertisements

Seth J. Kraus, a lawyer for Berean Baptist Church, People’s Baptist Church, Pastor Ron Baity and the non-profit Return America, argued for a temporary restraining order in Raleigh against Gov. Roy Cooper.

Cooper said on Saturday he would not seek to appeal the ruling.

Ford Porter, Governor Roy Cooper’s spokesperson, responded to a court ruling today on religious services during COVID-1 saying that, “We don’t want indoor meetings to become hotspots for the virus and our health experts continue to warn that large groups sitting together inside for long periods of time are much more likely to cause the spread of COVID-19. While our office disagrees with the decision, we will not appeal, but instead urge houses of worship and their leaders to voluntarily follow public health guidance to keep their members safe.”

The plaintiffs are asking for the courts to grant a concurrently filed motion for a temporary restraining order and to declare Cooper’s orders unlawful and keep any official or similar from enforcing the order. In addition, the plaintiffs are asking for damages as well as court and legal fees.

The suit says Cooper’s orders “treat religious gatherings less favorably than similar secular gatherings, virtually banning religious assembly, are not narrowly tailored, and do not permit less restrictive means to achieve the government’s interest without burdening Plaintiffs’ rights as guaranteed by U.S. Constitution First Amendment.”

U.S. District Court Judge James C. Dever heard arguments from the plaintiffs and the state.

During the proceedings, U.S. District Court Judge James C. Dever questioned the state on why the governor could trust businesses and not trust churches.

In a press conference held today in front of the legislative building, several religious non-profit advocacy groups announced they would be filing suit today against Cooper for restrictions his orders have placed on churches and worship services.

The press conference was organized by Return America, a faith-based advocacy group located in Wallburg, NC. Return America seeks to create “a network of churches and individuals” to promote Judeo-Christian values and to help educate and influence government in those principles.

“We’re not against this man, we’re against his policy,” said Dr. David Gibbs, Jr., founder and president of the Christian Law Association. Gibbs also said,  “We have the ability to open our churches safely.”

Several members of the General Assembly were in attendance including Rep. Keith Kidwell (R-Beaufort), Larry Pittman (R-Cabarrus), Rep  Mike Speciale (R-Craven), Rep. Steve Jarvis (R-Davidson), Larry Potts (R-Davidson), Jeff McNeely (R-Iredell), Rep. Phil Shepard (R-Onslow), and Jerry Carter (R-Rockingham).

The plaintiffs in the suit are Berean Baptist Church, Return America, Inc., Dr. Ronnie Baity, Pastor of the Church and President of Return America and People’s Baptist Church, Inc.

The suit against Cooper is challenging five of his executive orders, including the most recent order,  as “unconstitutional.”

The plaintiffs are asking for the courts to grant a concurrently filed motion for a temporary restraining order and to declare Cooper’s orders unlawful and keep any official or similar from enforcing the order. In addition, the plaintiffs are asking for damages as well as court and legal fees.

The suit says Cooper’s orders “treat religious gatherings less favorably than similar secular gatherings, virtually banning religious assembly, are not narrowly tailored, and do not permit less restrictive means to achieve the government’s interest without burdening Plaintiffs’ rights as guaranteed by U.S. Constitution First Amendment.”

“The Orders are not neutral laws of general applicability because they target Constitutionally protected activity, significantly burdening the Plaintiffs’ right to freedom of religion and assembly, establishing an orthodox form of religious exercise approved by the State, all the while providing broad exemptions for many other gatherings of more than 10 people that are not constitutionally protected,” the suit reads.

A second suit may be filed as early as next week unless Cooper relents and allows hair and beauty salons to open.

A letter sent to the governor on May 13 on behalf of the Hair is Essential Association by the law firm of Kitchen and Turrentine. Cooper has been given a deadline of May 18 at noon to lift his order or the group will move forward with a lawsuit.

“People have the inalienable right to earn a living. Neither you, nor the state, have the right to preclude citizens using their own means from pursuing their own vocation,” the letter reads.

The letter says that the governor overstepped his legal power or authority since his orders were “issued in violation of N.C. General Statute § 166A-19.30(b).”

The cited statutes deal with the additional powers that can be granted to the governor during a state of emergency. Specifically, the statute says that emergency powers are granted to the governor “during a gubernatorially or legislatively declared state of emergency, with the concurrence of the Council of State.”

When Cooper issued his order shutting down restaurants and bars in March, emails provided by Lt. Gov. Dan Forest show that the governor failed to get concurrence from the Council of State. The email time stamp shows the email was sent at 12:41 p.m. and request a response by 1:15 p.m., leaving the Council of State members no chance to debate the issue and only a 30-minute window to respond.