SEC. 2.
(a) Religion provides extensive benefits to our country, not only in meeting the spiritual needs of our populace, but also supporting social services, health care, and economic activity.(b) Religion contributes $1.2 trillion annually to the nation’s economy and society. This includes charitable activities, health care, educational services, and millions of volunteer hours in programs that help the poor, individuals struggling with addiction or mental illness, and even job training programs. “Congregations, businesses inspired by faith, faith-based charities and institutions not only build communities and families, but also strengthen our economy
in every town and city of the country.” “The Socio-economic Contribution of Religion to American Society: An Empirical Analysis,” a 2016 study by Brian J. Grim (Georgetown University) and Melissa E. Grim (Newseum Institute), published in the peer-reviewed journal, Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, Volume 12, Article 3.
(c) “The Constitution forbids laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. That guarantee protects not just the right to be a religious person, holding beliefs inwardly and secretly; it also protects the right to act on those beliefs outwardly and publicly.” Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2276 (June 30, 2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).
(d) The United States Supreme Court has “long recognized the importance of
protecting religious actions, not just religious status.” Id. “[T]he First Amendment protects the ‘freedom to act’ as well as the ‘freedom to believe.’ ” Id., (quoting Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940)).
(e) The Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution guarantees religious believers, at a bare minimum, equal treatment under the law. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 542 (1993).
(f) “What benefits the government decides to give, whether meager or munificent, it must give without discrimination against religious conduct.” Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2277 (June 30, 2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).
(g) The government violates
the Free Exercise Clause whenever it “conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or … denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by a religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior to violate his beliefs.” Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Division, 450 U.S. 707, 717-18 (1981).
(h) “The First Amendment does not allow our leaders to decide which rights to honor and which to ignore.” Spell v. Edwards, 962 F.3d 175, 183 (5th Cir., June 18, 2020) (Ho, J., concurring).
(i) “Government does not have carte blanche, even in a pandemic, to pick and choose which First Amendment rights are ‘open’ and which remain ‘closed.’” Id. at p. 181.
(j) Government officials may not afford a greater degree of protection to commercial than to noncommercial speech, Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 513 (1981) (plurality opinion), or prefer the transmission of secular views over religious ones, Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 830-31 (1995).
(k) The government may not devalue religious reasons for congregating by judging them to be of lesser import than nonreligious reasons. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 537 (1993).
(l) The government may not permit “life-sustaining” operations to continue during a state of emergency without also permitting “soul-sustaining” operations such as religious services to continue, especially
when the religious services “adhere to all the public health guidelines required of the other services.” Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409, 414 (6th Cir., May 9, 2020).
(m) Dr. Timothy P. Flanigan, Professor of Medicine at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, provided sworn testimony in federal court that religious services pose no greater threat to public health than other gatherings where the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines are followed, per Flanigan Expert Decl., Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, No. 3:20-cv-00303, Dkt. 38-31 (D. Nev. June 3, 2020). Dr. Flanigan concluded:
(1) “There is no scientific or medical reason that a religious service that follows the guidelines issued by the CDC would pose a more significant risk of
spreading SARS-CoV-2 than gatherings or interactions at other establishments or institutions.” Id. at paragraph 27.
(2) “[T]here is no scientific or medical reason that people could not follow the CDC guidance just as carefully in a religious setting as they could in a non-religious setting. In fact, my experience has been that individuals in religious settings are observant of the rules established by their houses of worship.” Id. at paragraph 32.
(3) “[S]o long as the CDC guidelines are followed, there is no scientific or medical reason to prohibit religious services but not prohibit other activities or gatherings, nor is there any scientific or medical reason to allow certain activities or gatherings while not allowing religious services.” Id. at paragraph 33.
(4) “[S]o long as the CDC guidelines are followed, there is no scientific or medical reason to limit the number of persons at a religious gathering while not imposing the same restrictions on shopping malls, big box stores, restaurants or bars, gyms or fitness centers, barbershops or hair salons, movie theaters, museums, water parks, offices, workplace meetings, gambling casinos, factories, supermarkets, farmer’s markets, retail stores, demonstrations, or other places where individuals interact, gather, or share space.” Id. at paragraph 34.