☆ SJ church case can’t inform future rulings: Experts react

The latest chapter in a controversial legal battle has seen Calvary Chapel’s (Covid-era) contempt-of-court charges dropped. Yet, the case will be depublished, so it can’t be used as legal precedent. Law experts offer insight into this complex local bind in an Opp Now exclusive.

Raymond Hebert, Civil, Estate, Family, and Constitutional Law Attorney in Visalia, CA:

The restrictions on church gatherings in California were an unreasonable limitation of the free exercise of religion. Churches are told in the Scriptures to meet regularly, “not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together” (Hebrews 10:25), and many chose to follow this directive in obedience to God and as consistent with both the U.S. and California Constitutions. During a virus outbreak and at other stressful and traumatic times, the church, Christian fellowship and outreach, and the worship of God are needed more than ever. 

It is therefore a welcome development that the fines of the Calvary Chapel in San Jose were canceled. That the decision was ordered unpublished by the California Supreme Court may suggest an attempt at straddling the fence on this issue.

Kelly Chang Rickert, Family Law and Constitutional Law Attorney in Pasadena, CA:

Churches should be free to keep their doors open, especially during times of confusion and panic. 

It is unclear how this ordinance was implemented, but if there were other businesses that were allowed to stay open (like casinos or bars), this law as applied against houses of worship is unfair and discriminatory.

It is concerning that the higher courts depublished this case so it couldn't be used as precedent.

Margaret M. Russell, Santa Clara University Associate Professor of Law, Constitutional Law Scholar:

The California Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case, combined with its decision to depublish the (lower) Court of Appeal’s opinion, essentially means that the Court of Appeal’s opinion is erased from the judicial record and cannot be used or cited in future opinions.

It is true that the church does not have to pay the $200,000+ in fees for contempt of court, but this does not mean that the California Supreme Court agreed with the church’s position. The Court is clear that no one can rely on the Court of Appeal decision for precedent in any way. The source of authority for depublication is California Rules of Court 8.1115.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity