1/ The Kentucky district ct. has issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Louisville from enforcing/attempting/threatening to enforce or requiring compliance with any prohibition on drive-in church services (w/ congregants remaining in cars parked 6 ft apart at all times)
2/ Here's the decision, which relies on Jacobson v. Massachusetts (a 1905 SCOTUS case upholding the state's power to impose compulsory vaccination during a smallpox outbreak) to find the prohibition on in-car services to be "beyond all reason" courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3/ It's a big week for Jacobson, which the Fifth Circuit also relied on heavily in its coronavirus abortion decision a few days ago:
4/ The court finds likelihood of success on federal #FirstAmendment claim AND state religious freedom statutory claim.
5/ On 1A claim, court applies strict scrutiny, relying on Lukumi Babalu (1990 SCOTUS case on religious animal sacrifice) to describe drive-in church prohibition as not "neutral" or "generally applicable"
6/ The court points out that parking cars 6 feet apart is permitted for other purposes, including driving to liquor-store pick-up windows, etc. Thus, the prohibition on drive-in religious services prohibits religious activity while permitting non-religious activity
7/ "To be sure, Louisville is pursuing a compelling interest of the highest order through its efforts to contain the current pandemic. But its actions violate the Free Exercise Clause b/c they are not even close to being “narrowly tailored to advance that interest.
8/ Drive-in church service ban is "underinclusive" because Louisville doesn't prohibit "a host of equally dangerous (or equally harmless) activities that Louisville has permitted on the basis that they are 'essential.'"
9/ Federal dist. court for the Western District of Kentucky:
"if beer is 'essential,' so is Easter."
"if beer is 'essential,' so is Easter."
