Challengers ask for injunction to school closures, citing Supreme Court decision

Students who sued California over school closures submitted a notice of decision seeking to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom's COVID-19 restrictions, after the nation's highest court struck down church gathering limit restrictions in New York.

The U.S. Supreme Court justices in a 5-4 split enjoined New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Nov. 25 from enforcing capacity limits on religious services. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 529 U.S. 20A87 (2020).

"The Supreme Court's decision is relevant to this case for several reasons," Harmeet K. Dhillon wrote in her notice of supplemental authority Monday. Dhillon, who represents the plaintiff students and parents, sued Newsom in federal court in Los Angeles over his mandate that fall semester classes be conducted remotely. Matthew Brach v. Newsom, 2:20-CV-06472 (C.D. Cal., filed Jul. 21, 2020).

Newsom issued his order following spikes in COVID-19 infections toward the end of summer.

"Although the governor had urged the Court to defer to the 'special expertise and responsibility' of the state's public health experts, the Court applied strict scrutiny to the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims," Dhillon wrote in her Monday filing, asking for an injunction of Newsom's order. "Rejecting the same argument for deference that Defendants have advanced here, the Court clarified that 'even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.'"

The defendants in the California case, just like in New York, argued Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) was the appropriate standard of review. But the justices "considered Jacobson so inapposite that it did not even bother to cite it," Dhillon wrote.

The nation's high court found Cuomo's rules were unconstitutional because there was no evidence parishioners contributed to the spike in COVID-19 infections. Less restrictive standards could be adopted to minimize the risk to those gathering for religious services, the justices said.

The same could be said for the schools' case, Dhillon argued. The California state government has not presented any evidence that schools contributed to the disease's spread, she claimed.

"Given the availability of numerous less restrictive options than total school closures, Defendants' orders, which violate Plaintiffs' fundamental constitutional rights, are unconstitutional and should be enjoined," Dhillon wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court also did not find the church's claims to be moot as they were subject to Cuomo's constantly changing orders. The justices granted the requested injunction, a decision relevant to California's argument in the schools' case, Dhillon argued. Restrictions could be implemented again without notice in California as well, Dhillon reasoned.

"This Court should thus reject Defendants' strained mootness argument and reach the merits of Plaintiffs' constitutional claims," Dhillon wrote.