Spell v. Edwards ( 2021 )

Case: 20-30712 Document: 00515897377 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 11, 2021
No. 20-30712
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Mark Anthony Spell; Life Tabernacle Church,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
John Bel Edwards, in his individual capacity and his official capacity as
Governor of the State of Louisiana; Roger Corcoran, in his individual
capacity and official capacity as Chief of Police of Central City, Louisiana; Sid
Gautreaux, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of East Baton
Rouge Parish, Louisiana,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:20-CV-282
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
This case arises out of a series of executive proclamations issued by
Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards in response to the COVID-19
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30712 Document: 00515897377 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2021
No. 20-30712
pandemic. Some of these proclamations imposed capacity restrictions on in-
person religious worship gatherings. Plaintiffs, a pastor and his church,
brought suit, alleging inter alia that these proclamations violated their rights
under the Free Exercise Clause. The district court entered a final judgment
dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims.
In its opinion, the district court applied rational basis review to
determine that the plaintiffs had not stated a claim for violation of the Free
Exercise Clause and also determined that the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive
relief were moot. In making its determinations, the district court did not have
the benefit of considering the Supreme Court’s recent cases regarding how
the Free Exercise Clause applies in the particular context of state-imposed
COVID-19 restrictions on religious worship. See Roman Cath. Diocese of
Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 67–69 (2020) (applying strict scrutiny to
certain COVID-19 restrictions, and enjoining New York from enforcing
COVID-19 restrictions on indoor worship); S. Bay United Pentecostal Church
v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 716 (2021) (enjoining California from enforcing its
COVID-19-related ban on indoor worship); Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct.
1294, 1297–98 (2021) (applying strict scrutiny to California’s restriction on
private religious gatherings, and enjoining California from enforcing those
restrictions).
We express no opinion on the merits of this case or the immunity
defenses raised by the defendants, which the district court should review in
the first instance.
2
Case: 20-30712 Document: 00515897377 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/11/2021
No. 20-30712
We VACATE the final judgment in this case and REMAND for the
district court to analyze the plaintiffs’ claims for damages1 in light of Supreme
Court authority.
1
Plaintiffs expressly waived their claims for preliminary or interim injunctive relief.
In their reply brief, Plaintiffs disclaimed any desire to present their claim for a permanent
injunction in this appeal but stated that they intend to pursue it if they are successful on
remand. We leave that issue to the district court in the first instance.
3