Supreme Court Showdown: ACLJ Challenges Newsom’s $1.2 Million COVID Fines Against Church

The ACLJ is proud to announce that we are joining forces with Robert Tyler and Advocates for Faith & Freedom to represent Calvary Chapel San Jose and Pastor Mike McClure in their critical fight for religious freedom.

Calvary Chapel refused to follow the orders of Leftist government officials in California by continuing to hold worship services and not enforcing California Governor Gavin Newsom’s mask mandates during the pandemic lockdowns.

Their courage in exercising their First Amendment rights resulted in over $1.2 million in government fines. This case perfectly represents the kind of religious liberty battle the ACLJ was founded to fight.

The weaponization of government against religious liberty that Calvary Chapel San Jose is facing should concern every American who values religious liberty – and that’s why we’re taking this case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Take action with us in this Supreme Court battle and add your name to our petition: Defeat the Left’s War Against Christians.

A Church Under Fire

The story began in 2020 when Governor Newsom and Santa Clara County issued sweeping public health orders that severely restricted religious gatherings. While these orders purported to apply generally, they contained numerous exemptions for secular activities. Construction workers, restaurant patrons, athletes, personal care services, and government employees all received various accommodations – but churches were expected to comply without question.

Calvary Chapel challenged these restrictions, arguing that the orders violated their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion. The church contended that gathering for worship with uncovered faces was central to their religious beliefs and practice.

The Government’s Heavy Hand

What happened next demonstrates the concerning lengths to which government officials will go to punish religious exercise. Santa Clara County issued notice after notice of violation, ultimately fining the church for:

• Failing to require face coverings for congregants and personnel
• Refusing to submit a “social distancing protocol”
• Continuing to hold worship services deemed non-compliant

The fines were structured to escalate dramatically – doubling daily until reaching $5,000 per day. Most troubling, the county based much of its enforcement on Calvary Chapel’s refusal to sign a sworn statement promising to comply with court orders that were later found to be unconstitutional.

Deep Constitutional Violations Demand Supreme Court Review

The Calvary Chapel case presents a perfect storm of constitutional violations that strike at the very heart of our First Amendment protections.

The Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence has crystallized a clear standard: Government regulations violate the Free Exercise Clause when they treat “any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise.” Tandon v. Newsom. The Santa Clara County orders present an almost textbook example of such discrimination.

Santa Clara County created a web of exemptions for secular activities that posed equal or greater COVID transmission risks:

• Athletic Exemptions: Wrestlers, football players, and basketball players – engaged in intense physical contact and heavy breathing – were exempt from masks while competing.
• Construction Exemptions: Workers could remove masks when doing so would create a risk, a subjective standard allowing individualized determinations.
• Restaurant Exemptions: Patrons could eat and drink maskless while seated, often for hours in enclosed spaces.
• Personal Care Exemptions: Clients receiving facial services, haircuts, or massages could remove masks during service.
• Government Entity Exemptions: The most problematic provision allowed government entities and contractors to exempt themselves whenever mask requirements would “impede or interfere with an essential governmental function.”

Perhaps most problematic is the government exemption provision, which created what the Supreme Court in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia would describe as “a formal mechanism for granting exceptions.” The county’s exemption for government functions based on whether requirements would “impede or interfere” with “essential” functions is precisely the type of subjective, individualized assessment that triggers strict scrutiny under Fulton.

The lower court compounded the constitutional error by placing the burden on Calvary Chapel to prove the exempted activities were comparable to religious worship. This directly contradicts Tandon, which held: “Where the government permits other activities to proceed with precautions, it must show that the religious exercise at issue is more dangerous than those activities even when the same precautions are applied.”

Moreover, the Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive fines, yet the county sought to impose over $1.2 million in penalties on a church for exercising its religious beliefs. The fines continued to accrue based on the church’s refusal to promise compliance with court orders that appellate courts later ruled were unconstitutional. The escalating fine structure – doubling daily to $5,000 – was designed not to seek compliance but to financially destroy the church’s ability to operate. Unlike traditional penalties for completed violations, these fines continued indefinitely until the church promised future compliance with requirements that included unconstitutional provisions. This transforms a penalty into an ongoing government weapon against religious exercise.

These violations represent exactly the type of government overreach the First Amendment was designed to prevent. When officials can create general rules riddled with secular exemptions, enforce them through questionable procedures, and impose escalating financial penalties until churches surrender constitutional rights, religious liberty becomes meaningless.

Why This Matters Today

While COVID-19 restrictions have largely been lifted, the precedent set by this case has lasting implications. The fundamental questions raised here will determine how future emergencies can be used to suppress religious liberty:

1. Can government create general rules with broad secular exemptions while denying similar accommodations to religious exercise?
2. Should churches be forced to promise compliance with government orders as a condition of avoiding escalating fines?

These aren’t just legal technicalities – they’re questions that go to the heart of whether Americans will remain free to practice their faith according to their conscience.

The Calvary Chapel case is part of a troubling pattern we’ve witnessed across the country. During the pandemic, we saw churches forced to close while liquor stores remained open, worship services limited to small numbers while big box stores welcomed crowds, outdoor religious gatherings banned while protest marches were celebrated, and clergy arrested for holding services while secular gatherings proceeded unimpeded.

These disparate treatments weren’t accidents – they reflected a troubling willingness by government officials to treat religious exercise as non-essential, something that could be restricted whenever officials deemed it convenient. The ACLJ successfully challenged the bans on worship in church and fought these unconstitutional restrictions on worship.

Taking This to the U.S. Supreme Court

With the California Supreme Court having denied Calvary Chapel’s petition for review, the next step is to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. The ACLJ is committed to doing exactly that.

The Supreme Court’s recent religious liberty decisions provide strong precedent for our position. In Tandon, the Court made clear that regulations violate the Free Exercise Clause when they treat “any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise.” The extensive secular exemptions in Santa Clara County’s orders – while denying similar accommodations to churches – represent exactly this type of constitutional violation.

At the ACLJ, we've spent decades fighting for religious freedom in courts across America and before the Supreme Court. We understand that religious liberty is not just another political issue – it's the foundation of all our other freedoms. The Calvary Chapel case presents exactly the type of constitutional violation we were founded to combat. Working alongside our colleagues at Advocates for Faith & Freedom, we are prepared to take this fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Calvary Chapel San Jose case represents more than just one church’s struggle – it’s a test of whether America will remain a nation where religious liberty is truly protected. We cannot allow religious freedom to become a second-class right, subject to suspension whenever officials deem it convenient. The same Constitution that protected religious exercise at our nation’s founding must continue to protect it today.

In the coming weeks, we will be filing our petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court to defend religious liberty. Take action with us in this Supreme Court battle and add your name to the petition: Defeat the Left’s War Against Christians.