U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez's ruling from the bench followed a pattern seen in some other recent cases. Mendez agreed with attorneys for the church that the pandemic is waning. But rather than seeing this good news as a reason to open up more quickly, Mendez instead urged the plaintiffs to show patience.

A federal judge denied an injunction sought by a Lodi church in the latest setback for critics of Gov. Gavin Newsom's pandemic restrictions.

U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez's ruling from the bench Tuesday afternoon followed a pattern seen in some other recent cases. Mendez agreed with attorneys for the church that the pandemic is waning. But rather than seeing this good news as a reason to open up more quickly, Mendez instead urged the plaintiffs to show patience.

"You haven't given me any reason why Cross Culture needs injunctive relief at this point," Mendez told the church's attorney, Dean R. Broyles, late in the hour-plus hearing. Cross Culture Christian Center v. Newsom, 2:20-cv-00832-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal., filed April 22, 2020.

This followed a back-and-forth between Mendez and Broyles, who is representing the church as president of the National Center for Law and Policy in Escondido. Broyles argued the church must hold five to six services to accommodate all its members in a week under current guidelines, and the court wasn't taking an expansive enough view of the harms its members have suffered because of Newsom's policies.

But Mendez shot back that Broyles arguments were "in the past." Restrictions are set to wane as case rates fall, the judge predicted, putting the church on track to gradually resume full services. He also noted the church has reported gaining new members during the pandemic, possibly because of the notoriety around their case. Mendez added the plaintiffs were asking him to overrule public health experts.

"Judges are not public health experts," he said.

The pair also got into an extended discussion of , 2020 DJDAR 12626 (Nov. 25, 2020). This U.S. Supreme Court case represents perhaps the biggest win for opponents of worship bans. It reaffirmed that houses of worship may not be treated more harshly than other institutions that pose similar risks.

"I don't see how you can compare a house of worship to a grocery store," Mendez said at one point.

"That's precisely what they did," Broyles shot back.

But Mendez said he didn't see any compelling evidence churches in California were being treated more harshly, adding that by some measures they appear to be getting more permissive treatment. He told Broyles he didn't read the Diocese case "as broadly as you are."

"I don't see the Supreme Court actually ever saying to all courts or district courts 'This is now the approach you need to take,'" Mendez said.

Many of the government attorneys logged on to the hearing were spectators. But several argued restrictions were still needed, especially in relation to higher risk activities like singing in an enclosed space.

"In the counties where the virus is widespread, it is simply is too dangerous to have in-person worship services," argued Deputy Attorney General Todd Grabarsky. "There is a mountain of evidence."

Last week, Mendez used similar rationale in dismissing a pandemic restriction challenge brought by a gym in Excel Fitness Fair Oaks, LLC, v. Newsom, 2:20-cv-02153-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal., filed Oct. 26, 2020).

"With the vaccine roll-out underway, there is finally some light at the end of the tunnel," Mendez wrote. "Within the year, the plaintiffs bringing these constitutional challenges to state and local public health orders may be able to resume normal operations. In the meantime, their continued compliance with the orders remains essential to helping prevent the spread of COVID-19 and saving lives."

#361794