From Contra Costa Health Services

The State of California this week granted Contra Costa County a variance that allows more local control over when some activities restricted by the COVID-19 pandemic may resume.

The variance allows Contra Costa to move ahead with its road map for reopening at a pace that is appropriate for local conditions, which includes hair salons, indoor dining, gyms and schools in coming weeks.

“We are able to reopen more businesses and activities because the people of Contra Costa have diligently followed the health orders restricting our activities for many months,” said Candace Andersen, chair of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. “We remain committed to a safe and careful reopening for our county.”

In an attestation filed to the state this week, Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) outlined the progress at managing the spread of COVID-19 locally and how the local healthcare system is preparing in the event of a new surge in cases.

If safe to do so, hair salons and barber shops can reopen for business on June 17, according to a timeline released by CCHS. Indoor dining, bars, gyms and fitness centers, hotels and some indoor entertainment venues may follow July 1.

The county’s timeline could change if community health indicators worsen, such as an increase in the number of new cases or patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Contra Costa is the first of six counties in the lower Bay Area to seek or receive a variance from the state COVID-19 health order, joining the North Bay counties of Napa, Solano and Sonoma.

Visit cchealth.org/coronavirus for more information about Contra Costa’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Claims “Restricting Religious Gatherings to 12 Participants Unconstitutionally Violates Right to Equal Protection”

“…the County’s Order violates federal and state law while unashamedly discriminating against houses of worship.”

On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 a formal legal letter was by attorney Harmeet Dhillon, founder of the Center for American Liberty, to members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, to ensure county health services staff follows through with their commitment to change the requirement to a recommendation that places of worship gather names and contact information of those who attend services and provide it to the county upon request. (See related articles, here, here and here). In addition, the letter points out that the county’s health order limiting indoor services to 12 people also violates the Constitution. 2020.06.10_HDhillon CAL Letter to Contra Costa County

June 10, 2020

Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors

651 Pine Street

Martinez, CA 94553

Re: Unconstitutional Contra Costa Health Services Order No. HO-COVID19-17, Specifically Regarding “Additional Businesses” (section 3 of Appendix C-1, Updated June 5, 2020)

Dear Board of Supervisors:

We write today, on behalf of clients in Contra Costa County, to demand the immediate rescission of Contra Costa Health Services Order NO. HO-COVID19-17 (the “Order”). The Order is concerning for two reasons: (1) Its requirement that houses of worship—and only houses of worship—keep and upon request disclose “a record of attendance” to Contra Costa Health Services violates both state and federally protected rights of associational privacy; (2) Restricting religious gatherings to no more than 12 participants violates First and Fourteenth Amendment protection. And while we appreciate the County’s recent announcement that it plans to revise its requirement that houses of worship keep and disclose attendance lists, until such plans manifest, we reiterate our objection over its current text.

1. Restricting Religious Gatherings to 12 Participants Unconstitutionally Violates First Amendment Rights

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits government actors from enforcing any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U. S. Const. amend. I; see also Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (applying the First Amendment to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment). Under strict scrutiny, the government cannot burden religious activity unless it first establishes (1) a compelling interest for imposing such burdens, and (2) that the burdens are the “least restrictive means” necessary to further that compelling interest. Federal courts routinely enjoin the enforcement of laws and policies under this standard. See e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah 508 U.S. 520, 524 (1993).

The County’s Order severely burdens religious expression. The Order’s restriction on indoor religious services—limiting the number of participants to 12 persons or 25% of the building’s capacity, whichever is less—does not survive exacting scrutiny in that it is not the least restrictive means to accomplish the County’s interest in public health. Simply put, there are better ways for the County to accomplish its interest in public health that do not burden religious expression as much. For example, restricting participation on a percentage basis only—with respect to facility seating capacity—is a better solution. Twelve people in a sanctuary that holds one thousand looks very different from twelve people in a sanctuary that holds one hundred people.

In other words, percentage-based restrictions accommodate larger houses of worship while satisfying the County’s interest in public health and social distancing.

1. Restricting Religious Gatherings to 12 Participants Unconstitutionally Violates Right to Equal Protection

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution provides that “[n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

Equal protection requires the state to govern impartially—not draw arbitrary distinctions between

individuals based solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objection. City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 446 (1985).

Here, the County’s 12-person limit on religious gatherings is nothing if not arbitrary. This is more restrictive than statewide health guidelines, according to the California Department of Health for places of worship, which currently limits attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is less; it is unclear where Contra Costa County’s “12 person” idea originates.

Additionally, no other establishment in Contra Costa County is subject to these more restrictive and draconian requirements. Costco, laundromats, marijuana dispensaries, and countless other purely secular entities are not burdened by this arbitrary, 12-person limitation.

On April 14, 2020, the United States Attorney General, William Barr, issued a statement addressing the disparate treatment being afforded to houses of worship.

As we explain in the Statement of Interest, where a state has not acted evenhandedly, it must have a compelling reason to impose restrictions on places of worship and must ensure that those restrictions are narrowly tailored to advance its compelling interest. While we believe that during this period there is a sufficient basis for the social distancing rules that have been put in place, the scope and justification of restrictions beyond that will have to be assessed based on the circumstances as they evolve.

Religion and religious worship continue to be central to the lives of millions of Americans. This is true more so than ever during this difficult time. The pandemic has changed the ways Americans live their lives. Religious communities have rallied to the critical need to protect the community from the spread of this disease by making services available online and in ways that otherwise comply with social distancing guidelines.

The County may not treat houses of worship as second class entities; at a minimum, it must treat them equitably with respect to secular counterpart. Contra Costa Health Services Order NO. HO-COVID19-17 does the opposite—it targets houses of worship with more burdensome restrictions.

III. The Order Infringes Upon Constitutionally Protected Right to Privacy Under State Law

The right to privacy is an inalienable right under California law.3 This privacy interest irrefutably extends to participation in religious gatherings.

In Church of Hakeem, Inc. v. Superior Court, Alameda County, 110 Cal. App. 3d 384 (Ct. App. 1980), the court expressly declined to mandate disclosure of member names and addresses, even after allegations of criminal activity or wrongdoing by the church. In City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Young, 2 Cal. 3d 259 (Ct. App. 1970), the court affirmed a list of freedoms afforded constitutional protections, such as the freedom of association and privacy in one’s associations, encompassing privacy of the membership lists of a constitutionally valid organization. In Pacific Union Club v. Superior Court, 232 Cal. App 3d 60 (Ct. App. 1991), the court provided a robust analysis of associational rights and ultimately upheld a private club’s right not to disclose member lists.

Applied here, Contra Costa County’s Order requiring houses of worship to create and preserve the names and contact information of those in attendance at a worship service or ceremony, and then disclose such information “immediately upon request” unconstitutionally violates privacy rights while chilling religious expression. Whether gathering for political, social, or religious reasons, the right of association is sacrosanct. Unfortunately, the County’s Order deprives Californians their right to pray, worship, repent, and seek spiritual guidance privately. Rather, the Order subjects their most intimate religious activities to potential publication.

3 “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Cal. Const. Art. 1 § 1

1. The Order Violates Right to Privacy Protected by Federal Law

The “Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations.” Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Ala. Ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958). Citing American Communications Ass’n, C.I.O., v Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 402 (1950), the Court explained,

‘A requirement that adherents of particular religious faiths or political parties wear identifying arm-bands, for example, is obviously of this nature.’ Compelled disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs is of the same order. Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particular where a group espouses dissident beliefs.

Here, Contra Costa County’s Order tramples Californians’ right to privacy and in doing so, violates the Due Process Clause. Similar to the state of Alabama in NAACP v. Alabama, Contra County is requiring houses of worship to disclose the identities of congregants gathering to worship. And similar to the state of Alabama, this mandatory disclosure of religious expression “curtails the freedom to associate,” “denying “the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” and is “subject to the closest scrutiny.” Id. at 460-61.

1. Attendance Recordation Requirement Violates Equal Protection Protected by Federal Law.

By the Order’s express terms, the Order discriminates against places of worship by requiring places of worship to create and maintain attendee lists, yet the Order places no other such burdens on any other non-religious establishment whatsoever. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, “a law burdening religious practice that is not neutral or not of general application must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993). Further, “A law is not generally applicable if its prohibitions substantially under include non-religiously motivated conduct that might endanger the same governmental interest that the law is designed to protect.” Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, 794 F.3d 1064, 1079 (9^th Cir. 2015) (citing Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 542–46). So, “In other words, if a law pursues the government’s interest ‘only against conduct motivated by religious belief,’ but fails to include in its prohibitions substantial, comparable secular conduct that would similarly threaten the government’s interest, then the law is not generally applicable.” Id.

The County fails this standard. Houses of worship are uniquely burdened by this public disclosure requirement. And again, no other entity appears to be subjected to this standard.

In conclusion, we believe the County’s Order violates federal and state law while unashamedly discriminating against houses of worship. For these reasons, the Center for American Liberty respectfully requests that Contra Costa Health Services Order NO. HO-COVID19-17, requiring houses of worship to record and disclosure attendance at religious services, be either rescinded or amended to cure its constitutional defects. We look forward to hearing your response.

Regards,

Harmeet K. Dhillon

cc: John Gioia, Candace Anderson, Diane Burgis, Karen Mitchoff, Federal D. Glover

May also challenge 12-person or 25% capacity limit for indoor services

Following is the statement from the Center for American Liberty’s Founder Harmeet K. Dhillon concerning the Contra Costa Health Services Order No. HO-COVID19-17. (See related article)

“The Center for American Liberty was contacted recently regarding the June 5, 2020 Order issued from Contra Costa Health Services (Order No. HO-COVID19-17). This Order was concerning for several reasons and we intend to formally reach out to Contra Costa County with an analysis of our concerns.

The June 5, 2020 Order, as presently written, specifically singles out places of worship by requiring that places of worship in Contra Costa County create and preserve a list of persons in attendance, and then disclose such attendance list upon request to the government – a burden that is notably not placed on other establishments in Contra Costa County. Such burden is unconstitutional and is discriminatory on its face.

The California Constitution provides certain inalienable rights, including the right to privacy, to freely assemble, and to enjoy one’s religion- Californians deserve to freely worship and assemble without fear that his or her name and address will end up in a government database. The Center for American Liberty welcomes any official change to this June 5, 2020 Order and will continue to be vigilant about any attempts to discriminate against houses of worship or people of faith in California.

Additionally, the June 5, 2020 Order currently limits houses of worship to a 12 person or 25% limit (whichever is fewer), which is arbitrary, and we will also be monitoring, and potentially challenging, this disparate burden on places of worship and people of faith in Contra Costa County.”

By Allen Payton

Contra Costa County health officials are backing down on their requirement in the latest order issued June 5 that places of worship gather names and information of all attendees, keep it for 14 days and provide it to the county immediately upon request. According to a statement issued Tuesday morning, “health officers will be working with county attorneys to revise the order to reflect this as a recommendation but not a requirement.”

The action comes following a series of email exchanges between the Herald and county supervisors and staff over the past several days about the requirement, an article and public outrage on social media challenging the constitutionality of the requirement, the inconsistent and unfair application to only places of worship, and no other organization or business, including protesters or restaurants offering outdoor dining in which people sit for extended periods of time with their masks off in order to it.

A legal effort was in the works as of Monday, with several residents agreeing to sign on to a legal demand letter to be sent to the county. But that now appears to be unnecessary.

Following is the Statement Regarding Requirements for Religious Gatherings

“In the health order issued June 5 by Contra Costa Health Services, religious organizations were required to maintain a list of attendees at religious services and cultural ceremonies in the event of an outbreak of COVID-19. The intention was to facilitate quick, complete contact tracing if a participant at the event tests positive.

Health officers will be working with county attorneys to revise the order to reflect this as a recommendation but not a requirement. If a participant tests positive for COVID-19, the host will be asked to assist CCHS with contact tracing associated with the gathering.

To mitigate the risk of transmission to the greatest extent possible, CCHS encourages participants to wear face coverings at all times, maintain social distance when possible, practice good hand hygiene, and stay home if sick.”

According to Kim McCarl, Assistant to the Director of Contra Costa Health Services for Communications, “As we revise the language, the recommendation will apply to any allowed gatherings.”

According to Kim McCarl, the county health services communications assistant, the “guidelines will be the same as the state’s”. No word on if the requirement to create lists of the names and contact information of all attendees to be given to the county upon demand will still be included. (See related article)

By Allen Payton

In his Friday, June 5, 2020 order, Contra Costa County Health Officer Dr. Chris Farnitano now allows religious services to hold outdoor worship services of up to 100 people and indoor worship services of up to 12 people. (See related article)

However, buried deep within the order, in Section 3, Subsection B3 of “Appendix C1 – Additional Businesses” the order requires “A record of attendance, including the names and contact information for each attendee at a service or ceremony, must be created and preserved by the Place of Worship for a minimum of 14 days, and provided to Contra Costa Health Services immediately upon request in the event that a COVID-19 case is linked to the event.”

An email was sent to all five members of the County Board of Supervisors and county health services communications staff, in an attempt to reach Dr. Farnitano, Saturday evening with the following questions.

• Are you also requiring protest organizers to provide a list of those who attend them?
• Or restaurants to provide you a list of diners who enjoy outdoor dining at their locations?
• How would anyone know a COVID-19 case was linked to an outdoor worship service of up to 100 people or an indoor one of up to 12 people?
• Don’t you think you’ve infringed on the First Amendment rights of people of faith in our county enough already?
• Don’t you think this goes way too far?
• Was the county counsel consulted before this was included in the order?

Four of the members of the board were also sent text messages asking them to check their emails for the message.

Supervisor John Gioia, who was an attorney before being elected to the board in 1998, responded first via text message with, “Yes. It’s to keep track of people who are in contact with someone who tests positive. For contact tracing. And have them isolate for 14 days if they test positive.”

When asked again if protesters are required to give their names and information and what about restaurants that serve outdoor diners, he simply responded, “It’s a fine balance. I understand the arguments on both sides.”

Board Chair Candace Andersen responded by email with, “Karen (Mitchoff) and I chair at COVID Ad Hoc Committee each Thursday at 1:30 pm (available to all via Zoom). This week we had Dr. Farnitano explain this provision at our meeting. It’s simply there so that if there is a COVID outbreak, a church could make the names of attendees available so that they could be traced/tracked and notified that they may have been exposed. The only time these names would be requested is if there was, in fact, someone who came down with COVID in the congregation.”

“In a workplace or at a school the Health Department would also request the names of everyone who was present and exposed to someone who tested positive for COVID. In those settings the names would already be available because of the nature of the business,” she continued. “I will ask our Health Team to put an FAQ up so that its purpose can be clarified.”

In response, another email was sent to Andersen, Mitchoff, and the county health services communications staff, asking for answers to the questions from the first email that were not answered by Andersen.

The requirement from the June 5th order was shared on social media and almost all the comments about it were negative such as, “Do businesses with thousands of people going in and out need to record all of this? I go to many businesses and my name is never recorded, unless it is a dentist or something,” and “That is so crazy…are we still in the USA? Or is this a bad dream?”

Another commenter asked, “How about the names of the thousands of…protestors before they go out and the looters too?” Another comment reads, “I’ve wondered how they are tracking all the people at Walmart, Target and Home Depot. They don’t take attendance there.”

“Ridiculous! Control! Why not other businesses? Only churches?” asked another commenter. “I won’t attend until that changes. My name isn’t going on any list,” wrote another.

One pastor wrote, “That’s too far” and another wrote, “I’m not doing that. They don’t do that with Walmart, Home Depot, etc.”

The Bill of Rights are limitations on the power of government. It can be argued that the requirement in the county’s health order violates both the First and Fourth Amendment rights religion, peaceful assembly and privacy, of both the worship service attendees and those of the places of worship.

The First Amendment mentions religion first in the list of rights, because that is the first reason our nation was founded, going back to the Pilgrims in 1620. It reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That applies to any state law, county or city ordinance, regulation or order, as well.

The Fourth Amendment refers to what is described as the right to privacy. It reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” So, a church or other place of worship could require the county to provide a warrant to obtain the information the order requires.

6/7/20 UPDATE: Chair Andersen Responds

In an email received by the Herald on Sunday afternoon, June 7, Board of Supervisors Chair Candace Andersen offered the following responses to some of the questions posed to her and the rest of the board members and Dr. Farnitano:

“How would anyone know a COVID-19 case was linked to an outdoor worship service of up to 100 people or an indoor one of up to 12 people? That’s why we have contract tracing in place. We would track/trace people at both venues to make sure others who were exposed are tested, thus preventing a serious outbreak.

Don’t you think you’ve infringed on the First Amendment rights of people of faith in our county enough already? In a worldwide pandemic of this scope we are continually balancing the health of the community versus any limitations we need to impose upon the public. I really miss going to church. For my entire life I have gone every single Sunday unless I was home sick. However, I can see how it is for the greater good to NOT have live church services where we could potentially be exposing each other to a horrible virus. And, I continue to worship at home with my family, with fellow church members via Zoom and YouTube, through reading scriptures, listening to uplifting music, and finding new ways to connect spiritually. Yes, it’s different than it was, but I also know it is only temporary. More importantly, “the State” is not telling me how or who I should be worshipping, only that it is unsafe to gather as a congregation right now. As you know, the State Supreme Court has agreed that in this emergency we’re in, this is an acceptable limitation.

Don’t you think this goes way too far? Was the county counsel consulted before this was included in the order? All Health Orders have County Counsel’s review before they are implemented. I would be concerned if churches were mandated to report attendance each week, but they’re not. No one is reviewing the attendance or calling out who is or is not there. Churches are just being asked to be in a position to identify who was present at a service so that if there is an outbreak, the affected people can be notified and tested.”

However, the recent ruling in the case before the Supreme Court had nothing to do with government requiring places of worship to collect the names and contact information of those who attend worship services and provide it upon request.

A more complete question was sent to her and Dr. Farnitano asking, “how would anyone know a COVID-19 case was linked to an outdoor worship service of up to 100 people or an indoor one of up to 12 people if that same attendee participated in a number of other activities, both indoor and outdoor, during the week?

Possible legal action can be expected against the county in the very near future.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Road to Reopening – A message from Anna M. Roth, Health Director, Contra Costa County

(June 6, 2020) Thanks to all your collective efforts and sacrifices for the health of the community, we are making progress in our fight against COVID-19. There is light at the end of the tunnel.

The state is permitting us and other counties to chart their own courses based on local conditions. We are now able to provide a timeline laying out when we are aiming for opening more businesses and allowing more activities. I hope this provides some clarity about our hoped next steps. We will be updating this document as we get further guidance from the state and in consideration of the status of COVID-19 in our community. Stay safe and we will all get through this together.

But the road map includes the caveat of “We hope to continue opening up the county but, may need to reconsider openings based on the course of the pandemic.”

However, the road map includes the caveat of “We hope to continue opening up the county, but may need to reconsider openings based on the course of the pandemic.” An email was sent to the county health services asking why churches/religious services are not included and when they will be. Please check back later for updates to this report.

For more information visit www.coronavirus.cchealth.org.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

 

From Contra Costa Health Services

Contra Costa County residents may again enjoy outdoor swimming pools, outdoor seating at restaurants and dog parks under a new health officer order released today.

The order, effective 5 p.m. today, also allows for outdoor religious services of up to 100 people, indoor religious services of up to 12 people, use of outdoor picnic and barbecue spaces, and overnight camping for people belonging to the same household.

Because of the progress made in the fight against COVID-19, Contra Costa health officers feel confident opening additional businesses and activities. The State of California has determined that while counties can move slower than state in reopening, they cannot move more quickly. The openings announced today bring Contra Costa County in closer alignment to state guidelines. It also aligns with other Bay Area counties taking similar steps.

“We have made great progress slowing COVID-19 in our county,” said Candace Andersen, chair of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors. “I want to offer a heartfelt thank you to all who suffered and sacrificed to follow these health orders throughout this pandemic. I know it has not been easy. But you have helped save lives.”

This order follows a modification earlier this week that allowed offices and many retail businesses to reopen and created guidance for small gatherings including people from different households.

Previous health orders requiring physical distancing and face coverings in public spaces remain in effect. Contra Costa residents should also continue to emphasize handwashing and other hygiene measures in their daily lives to reduce their risk of becoming infected.

“COVID-19 is still circulating in our community, and we need to take precautions to prevent outbreaks,” said Dr. Chris Farnitano, the county health officer. “Another way we can keep ourselves and our families safe is to get tested, even if we feel well.”

The new order includes guidance for safely conducting the newly permitted activities, including requirements for businesses. Details, including the full text of the order, are available at cchealth.org/coronavirus.