California judge blocks Gov. Newsom's COVID-19 restrictions on worship services



A California judge on Thursday temporarily blocked Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's coronavirus restrictions on worship services, which critics say unconstitutionally discriminate against people of faith.

Judge Gregory Pulskamp's ruling imposed an injunction against enforcement of California's planned COVID-19 restrictions on houses of worship, citing the recent Supreme Court decision that struck down New York's COVID-19 rules for churches as unconstitutionally discriminatory.

Newsom's new stay-at-home order separates California into five regions and activates when a particular region's remaining ICU capacity falls below 15%. When in effect, the order bans indoor worship services while permitting retail businesses to operate indoors at 20% capacity.

In September, attorneys with the Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit on behalf of Father Trevor Burfitt, a California priest, challenging Newsom's authority to issue his emergency lockdown orders.

Judge Pulskamp said that Newsom's lockdown failed to treat houses of worship as "equal to the favored class of entities," those being "entities permitted to engage in indoor activities — also known as 'essential businesses' or 'critical infrastructure' — includ[ing] big-box retail stores, grocery stores, home improvement stores, hotels, airports, train stations, bus stations, movie production houses, warehouses, factories, schools, and a lengthy list of additional businesses."

The judge found that California's argument for permitting some secular activity while outright banning indoor religious activity was not persuasive.

However, Defendants' efforts to distinguish the permitted secular activity from the prohibited religious activity are not persuasive. For example, Defendants contend that the congregations of shoppers in big-box stores, grocery stores, etc., are not comparable to religious services in terms of crowd size, proximity, and length of stay. To the contrary, based on the evidence presented (or lack thereof) and common knowledge, it appears that shoppers at a Costco, Walmart, Home Depot, etc. may – and frequently do – congregate in numbers, proximity, and duration that is very comparable to worshippers in houses of worship. Defendants have not convincingly established that the health risks associated with houses of worship would be any different than "essential businesses" or "critical infrastructure," assuming the same requirements of social distancing and the wearing of masks were applied across the board. …

In addition, the restrictions at issue in this case are not "narrowly tailored" because the occupancy limits imposed on places of worship by the Purple Tier of the Blueprint for a Safer Economy and the Regional Stay at Home Order are zero – a total and complete ban of indoor religious services. These restrictions are arguably harsher than any other set of restrictions considered by the courts in all of the cases cited by the parties in this action. In Roman Catholic Diocese, the court considered New York's religious services occupancy limits of 10 persons in "Red Zones" and 25 persons in "orange zones" to be "very severe restrictions" and "far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the Court [footnote omitted], much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus at the applicants' services." (Roman Catholic Diocese, supra, at p. 1, 2.) What then should the courts think of California's total ban on indoor services? "Narrowly tailored" regulations mean "the least restrictive means available" and may potentially include a variety of less draconian measures such as "social distancing, wearing masks, leaving doors and windows open, forgoing singing, and disinfecting spaces between services." (Roman Catholic Diocese, supra, at p. 4 (conc. opn. of Gorsuch, J.).) Therefore, it seems highly probable that Plaintiffs will prevail in this case should the matter proceed to trial.

Quoting Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh from his dissent in South Bay United, Pulskamp slammed restrictions on churches as absurd.

"Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister? … The State cannot 'assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings.'"

The judge's ruling will temporarily block California from enforcing its restrictions on indoor worship until a full trial can be conducted.

Reacting to the decision, attorneys from the Thomas More Society praised the outcome and the Supreme Court's decision in Brooklyn Diocese v. Cuomo for defending religious liberty.

"After more than nine months of tyranny in the name of 'containing the spread' of a virus they have failed to contain, the gubernatorial dictators presiding over draconian lockdowns are running out of runway on their claim that churches are somehow more dangerous viral vectors than any of the litany of 'essential businesses' crowded with customers that they allow to operate at 100% capacity," Thomas More Society special counsel Christopher Ferrara said.

"The Supreme Court's decision in Brooklyn Diocese v. Cuomo has opened the way to the liberation of churches from the absurd and bigoted superstition that they are veritable death chambers threatening the entire population. Not even hair salons, which by the services offered necessitate close personal contact, have been subjected to the onerous and barefaced biases heaped upon houses of worship," Ferrara stated.

"We are deeply grateful to Judge Pulskamp for his recognition that, as his decision states (quoting Brooklyn Diocese): 'But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten," Ferrara continued. "The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty. Before allowing this to occur, we have a duty to conduct a serious examination of the need for such a drastic measure.'"

(H/T: Hot Air)

Sheriffs say they won't enforce far-left California Gov. Gavin Newsom's new lockdown order



With a new lockdown order looming in California over a reported spike in COVID-19 cases and hospital beds filling up, the state's far-left Gov. Gavin Newsom won't be getting much help enforcing his new restrictions from Southern California sheriffs.

What are the details?

Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva told KTTV-TV he won't be enforcing Newsom's order on businesses, many of which will be forced to close when ICU bed capacity hits a certain threshold. The governor's new order officially goes into effect at 1 p.m. Saturday, the station said.

Villanueva added to the station that business enforcement is the health department's job.

"I want to stay away from businesses that are trying to comply the best they can," he said.

"They bent over backwards to modify their entire operation to conform to these current health orders, and then they have the rug yanked out from under them — that's a disservice," he also told KTTV. "I don't want to make their lives any more miserable."

Villanueva also told the station there was no coordination regarding the new order — and he actually learned about it from Newsom's news conference.

"Anything that has to do with enforcement, you've got to make sure you're working in partnership with all the people carrying out the enforcement," Villanueva said.

But Newsom also is threatening to pull pandemic relief funds from counties refusing to comply with his new orders, the station added.

"If you're unwilling to enforce the rules, if you're unwilling to adopt the protocols to support the mitigation and the reduction and spread of this disease, we're happy to redirect those dollars to counties that feel differently," Newsom noted, according to KTTV. "That's exactly what we've done."

What did other sheriffs have to say?

Ventura County Sheriff Bill Ayum issued a statement to the station regarding Newsom's order: "Our approach to enforcement of the continuously evolving health orders has not changed from the onset of the pandemic. Our approach is one of educating the public of the health orders and encouraging compliance with them. Enforcement has always been an option for our staff to use with considerable discretion. However, our primary goal is to seek voluntary compliance whenever possible."

The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department offered a statement to KTTV saying its deputies won't respond to calls regarding Newsom's new order: "As has been the case since we were initially faced with the difficulties of living and working through this pandemic together, our goal is to educate and gain voluntary compliance regarding Public Health orders. We will continue to partner with our communities and deliver the law enforcement services they deserve while keeping health and safety of our staff and those we serve as a top priority."

The station said sheriffs from Orange and Riverside counties pointed to their previous statements about refusing to enforce the governor's curfew order.

California Democratic lawmaker attacks Gov. Newsom's union-backed plan keeping schools closed: 'State-sanctioned segregation'



It has been a rough week for the left-wing Democratic governor of America's largest state as he attempts to deal with the surge in COVID-19 cases.

Gov. Gavin Newsom first declared limits on social gatherings in indoor dining, only to be discovered — and photographed — attending an indoor birthday party at a restaurant with a dozen other people. Adding insult to injury, it turned out that some of the people with him were officials from the California Medical Association — presumably folks who should have known better.

And now, as schools are being closed around the country despite the fact that COVID-19 infection rates in schools have been lower than infection rates in their surrounding communities, Newsom's policies on school closures are getting new scrutiny.

Though many Californians have been begging the government to reopen the schools, Newsom — at the behest of the unions — has chosen to keep them closed, which means most of the Golden State's 6 million public school students are stuck going to school remotely, Politico reported.

Even Democrats are beginning to notice and call out the governor for what seems an inconsistent and discriminatory policy, as even areas with the lowest infection rates are not even trying to get back to school — despite the fact that the communities and the schools are remarkably low in COVID-19 cases.

And as the year wears on, Newsom's fellow Democrats are pointing out that the state's approach to schools is disproportionately impacting low-income and minority communities.

In fact, the governor was recently called out for announcing that he was sending his own kids back to private school in Sacramento, while the city's public schools remained shuttered, Politico pointed out.

Actually, Democrats are doing more than pointing out Newsom's inconsistent school stances: They're actually turning on him.

State Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell, who chairs the Assembly Education Committee, ripped the union-backed policy that Newsom has stuck to.

O'Donnell said in an interview, according to Politico, that the state's current system amounts to "state-sanctioned segregation."

"Some kids get to go and some don't. That's not what California stands for," he said, the paper reported. "I think we need to move faster but remain thoughtful."

According to O'Donnell, the state needs Newsom to lead and to provide "strong guidance."

"We might be dead last to open," he warned, "and our students might be dead last when it comes to academic success if we're not careful."

California Gov. Newsom issues lockdown order over coronavirus spike; one sheriff from a large county has already refused to enforce it



Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a stay-at-home order for most of the counties in California, but one sheriff has already announced that he would not be enforcing Newsom's command.

Newsom issued the order on Thursday after a spike in coronavirus cases throughout the state.

"The virus is spreading at a pace we haven't seen since the start of this pandemic and the next several days and weeks will be critical to stop the surge. We are sounding the alarm," Newsom said. "It is crucial that we act to decrease transmission and slow hospitalizations before the death count surges. We've done it before and we must do it again."

Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes issued a statement soon after that his officers would not be enforcing the guidelines.

"Earlier today, the Orange County Sheriff's Department became aware of a limited Stay at Home Order that Governor Newsom's office ordered to go into effect on Saturday, November 21 at 10 PM. Throughout the pandemic, the Orange County Sheriff's Department has taken an education-first approach with regard to the public health orders," said Barnes in the statement.

"We are currently assessing the action by the Governor," he added.

"At this time, due to the need to have deputies available for emergency calls for service, deputies will not be responding to requests for face-coverings or social gatherings-only enforcement," Barnes concluded.

Orange County in California is the third most populous county in the state and the sixth most populous county in the United States, and it has a greater population than 21 states.

California was the first state to issue a lockdown order in March for its 40 million residents. Some restrictions had been eased as the coronavirus cases lessened, but that progress has been lost as cases spiked again.

Newsom is also battling enormous blowback after he was caught having an expensive dinner at an exclusive restaurant without wearing a mask and without following social distancing guidelines.

California legislators didn't help his cause when they were caught going to a luxury hotel in Hawaii for a conference while Californians were told they should avoid family gatherings for the holidays.

Here's more about Newsom's scandal:

COVID: Gov. Gavin Newsom Remains On Hot Seat Over French Laundry Dinner Partywww.youtube.com