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 Matt J. Malone, Public Information Officer, Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County

Due to anticipated civic activities in the area, the Contra Costa Superior Court will close at all locations at 12:00 p.m. on Friday, June 5.

ALL COURT LOCATIONS WILL REOPEN TO THE PUBLIC ON MAY 26, 2020 AT 8:00 A.M.

• IF YOU ARE SICK, DO NOT COME TO THE COURT. NO ONE WHO IS SICK OR WHO IS EXHIBITING COVID-19 SYMPTOMS WILL BE PERMITTED TO ENTER ANY COURT FACILITY.
• YOU MUST WEAR A MASK OR FACE COVERING TO ENTER ANY COURT FACILITY AND AT ALL TIMES WHILE INSIDE.
• ANYONE ENTERING ANY COURT FACILITY WILL HAVE THEIR TEMPERATURE TAKEN. IF YOU HAVE A TEMPERATURE OF 100 DEGREES OR HIGHER, YOU WILL BE DENIED ENTRY FOR THAT DAY.
• PLEASE EXPECT LONG LINES AND LONG WAIT TIMES. THE COURT WILL FOLLOW SOCIAL DISTANCING REQUIREMENTS AND BUILDING ACCESS WILL BE LIMITED. PLEASE OBEY ALL SIGNS. YOUR PATIENCE IS APPRECIATED.
• CLERK’S OFFICES ARE OPEN 8:00 A.M. – 2:00 P.M., WITH PHONE HOURS FROM 10:00 A.M. – 2:00 P.M., UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
• THE MARTINEZ COURT RECORDS OFFICE REMAINS CLOSED. SEE BELOW FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING RECORDS ACCESS.
• PLEASE READ THE REMAINDER OF THIS RELEASE FOR INFORMATION ABOUT SPECIFIC OPERATIONS.

Entrances and Exits. All buildings will operate a single entry/exit point. Please follow all signs carefully. The Court Street entrance for the Wakefield Taylor building in Martinez will not be open; use the Main Street entrance only.

No Nonessential Parties. Due to social distancing limitations, individuals who are not essential to Court matters should not accompany parties to Court for any matter or case type.

Drop Box Filings. Drop boxes will still be available from 9 A.M. – 3 P.M. (one hour after clerk’s office closure). Because clerk’s offices will experience high demand and significant wait times, the Court encourages you to file items by drop box. Items placed in the drop box before 3:00 p.m. will be file-stamped that day. Drop box locations are:

• Civil: Main Street entrance of the Wakefield Taylor Courthouse in Martinez.
• Criminal: Main Street entrance of the Wakefield Taylor Courthouse in Martinez.
• Family: Main entrance of Family Law building in Martinez.
• Juvenile: Main entrance of the Walnut Creek Courthouse.
• Probate: Main Street entrance of the Wakefield Taylor Courthouse in Martinez.
• Pittsburg and Richmond courthouses: These drop boxes are available only for filings in case types heard at those locations.

Jury Service. Jury service will resume. Be assured that we are working with the County Health Department to ensure your safety. Those summoned must follow the rules above for access to the Court, including wearing masks. To obey social distancing requirements, jurors will be called in two-hour blocks. See your jury summons for call-in information. No more than 50 jurors will be present in a jury assembly room at any time. If you are sick, exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms, or are a high-risk individual (e.g., over 60 years of age, immunocompromised, etc.), the Court will excuse you from service upon proof. Please call 925-608-1000 and follow the prompts for Jury Services.

Emergency Local Rules. All Emergency Local Rules remain in effect unless otherwise noted or as superseded by effect of the Court’s reopening. Rules are available at: http://www.cc-courts.org/local-rules/local-rules.aspx

Filing Holidays. The Court is open for filing as of May 26, 2020. Filing holidays under this Court’s Implementation Orders and/or Emergency Local Rules expire as of the Court’s reopening. Judicial Council Emergency Rules of Court and/or orders of the Chief Justice, available on the Court’s website, may further extend filing holidays in certain cases. Review these carefully.

Records. The Court Records office in Martinez remains closed. The Court will only accept records requests and requests for background checks via drop box or mail, subject to all legal confidentiality exceptions. Do not wait in line or come to a clerk’s window with a records request.

Request forms may be downloaded from the appropriate Court Records webpage:

• For Criminal matters and background checks: http://www.cc-courts.org/criminal/records.aspx. Submit by mail or use the Criminal drop box.
• For any other matters: http://www.cc-courts.org/civil/records.aspx. Submit by mail or use the drop box for the appropriate case type.

Specific Matters

• Restraining Orders. The Court continues to accept applications for domestic violence, civil harassment, and gun violence restraining orders. For civil restraining orders, please review the Civil Emergency Local Rules. For domestic violence restraining orders and emergency protective orders, please review the Family Emergency Local Rules.
• Traffic. The Court is in the process of rescheduling all traffic matters and you will receive a notice of new dates. Read your notice carefully: The location of your matter may differ from your original notice. All traffic matters have been granted a 120-day extension which also applies to payment deadlines as well as deadlines for traffic school and community service completion.
• Small Claims. The Court will reschedule all small claims matters and provide notice of new dates. Read your notice carefully: The location of your matter may differ from your original notice.
• Unlawful Detainer. The Judicial Council’s Emergency Rules of Court prohibit the Court from issuing a summons on any new unlawful detainer complaints, with limited exceptions for urgent public health and safety matters. For matters involving violence, threats of violence, and/or health and safety issues, parties should provide documents with the filing, such as a declaration under oath, relating facts supporting the urgency on those grounds.
• Civil Limited and Unlimited.

1. Hearings and filings will proceed under the Civil Emergency Local Rules. Hearings from May 18, 2020 through May 27, 2020, will go forward on fully-briefed matters. Briefs for hearings on May 28, 2020, or thereafter must be filed under normal statutory timeframes even if that requires a filing during the closure period. Review the Civil Emergency Local Rules for further information.
2. The CourtCall process in the Civil Emergency Local Rules will be used for all hearings until further notice. Do not come to Court for your hearings.
3. Review the Complex Emergency Local Rules for procedures for Complex cases.

• Probate. All matters should be submitted via drop box. The Probate File Examiner Office will not be open to accept ex parte submissions until further notice. Review the Probate Emergency Local Rules for information on hearings and use of remote technology. The Probate department will be providing additional guidance separately.
• Criminal Virtual and Emergency Courtrooms. These courtrooms will close as of May 26, 2020, except by written stipulation of the parties approved by the Presiding Judge.

“But, it’s problematic because going to church still isn’t considered essential” – Attorney Harmeet Dhillon

By Allen Payton

A victory, Friday in a lawsuit on freedom of worship is forcing California to allow drive-in church services.

The lawsuit against the State of California naming Governor Gavin Newsom over his executive order, was filed by San Francisco attorney Harmeet Dhillon, founder of the non-profit Center for American Liberty and co-counsel Mark Meuser, on behalf of three southern California churches and one parishioner. (See related article)

According to twitter posts by Dhillon, a government brief filed late (Friday) morning claimed that “drive in” is a “technology” like streaming video, and now OK. In response to this executive order “clarification” by opposition brief, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties update(d) their health decrees to allow drive-in worship.

“This development is a partial victory in our lawsuit, but it still does not allow in-building services – meaning people seeking spiritual guidance and fellowship safely, are given no right to do so but the same people can visit wine, pot, food, laundry shops with a mask legally,” she tweeted.

“We continue to wait for ruling on TRO (temporary restraining order),” Dhillon continued. “People of faith may be treated no less favorably than any other people in California. Reporters, termite guys, tree trimmers, baristas, stir-fry chefs, grocery workers, and customers of all have rights – so do religious leaders & followers!”

She was asked why this applies to the entire state, when she was only representing the three churches and one parishioner in Southern California.

“But I sued the State of California over the statewide order, and the counties,” she explained.

The place where the so-called policy changes were announced are hidden in the ruling, with the state agreeing that “of course drive-in churches are a technology like streaming video,” Dhillon shared. “You and I both know that’s absurd. But, it’s problematic, because going to church still isn’t considered essential.”

There’s no requirement for the state to publicize the court’s decision.

“It’s sneaky,” she said.

Asked about her clients Dhillon said, “I’m only representing those who are socially responsible, like anyone else.”

According to their website, “The Center for American Liberty defends the Free Speech rights and Civil Liberties of Americans.”

“The non-profit hired my firm to represent the plaintiffs,” she explained.

The decision was handed down by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, which also includes Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

“I’m glad we were able to do this. This is a small thing,” Dhillon added. “You’re probably not going to see a lot of drive-in churches in the next week or two. But, it’s better than nothing, dressing up, driving in and seeing your friends.”

Department of Justice files Statement of Interest in Mississippi church case

On Tuesday, April 14, 2020, United States Attorney General William P. Barr, the nation’s top law enforcement officer, issued the following statement:

“In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the President has issued guidelines calling on all Americans to do their part to slow the spread of a dangerous and highly contagious virus.  Those measures are important because the virus is transmitted so easily from person to person, and because it all too often has life-threatening consequences for its victims, it has the potential to overwhelm health care systems when it surges.

To contain the virus and protect the most vulnerable among us, Americans have been asked, for a limited period of time, to practice rigorous social distancing.  The President has also asked Americans to listen to and follow directions issued by state and local authorities regarding social distancing.  Social distancing, while difficult and unfamiliar for a nation that has long prided itself on the strength of its voluntary associations, has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of American lives from an imminent threat.  Scrupulously observing these guidelines is the best path to swiftly ending COVID-19’s profound disruptions to our national life and resuming the normal economic life of our country.  Citizens who seek to do otherwise are not merely assuming risk with respect to themselves, but are exposing others to danger.  In exigent circumstances, when the community as a whole faces an impending harm of this magnitude, and where the measures are tailored to meeting the imminent danger, the constitution does allow some temporary restriction on our liberties that would not be tolerated in normal circumstances.

But even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers.  Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity. For example, if a government allows movie theaters, restaurants, concert halls, and other comparable places of assembly to remain open and unrestricted, it may not order houses of worship to close, limit their congregation size, or otherwise impede religious gatherings.  Religious institutions must not be singled out for special burdens.

Today, the Department filed a Statement of Interest in support of a church in Mississippi that allegedly sought to hold parking lot worship services, in which congregants listened to their pastor preach over their car radios, while sitting in their cars in the church parking lot with their windows rolled up.  The City of Greenville fined congregants $500 per person for attending these parking lot services – while permitting citizens to attend nearby drive-in restaurants, even with their windows open.[1]  The City appears to have thereby singled churches out as the only essential service (as designated by the state of Mississippi) that may not operate despite following all CDC and state recommendations regarding social distancing.

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 United States Department of Justice will continue to ensure that religious freedom remains protected if any state or local government, in their response to COVID-19, singles out, targets, or discriminates against any house of worship for special restrictions.”

11 temporary emergency rules include $0 statewide bail for misdemeanors and lower-level felonies during COVID-19 pandemic to “safely reduce jail populations”

By Blaine Corren, Senior Communications and Public Affairs Analyst, California Judicial Council

VIA TELECONFERENCE—At its meeting on Monday, April 6, 2020, the Judicial Council of California approved 11 temporary emergency rules, including setting bail statewide at $0 for misdemeanors and lower-level felonies to “safely reduce jail populations” and staying eviction and foreclosure proceedings to protect Californians from losing their homes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This was the second emergency council meeting of court and branch leaders from around the state to consider further measures to ensure California courts—which remain open as “essential services” under Gov. Newsom’s stay-home executive order—can meet stringent health directives while also providing due process and access to justice.

“We are at this point truly with no guidance in history, law, or precedent,” said Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, chair of the council. “And to say that there is no playbook is a gross understatement of the situation. In developing these rules, we listened to suggestions from our justice system partners, the public, and the courts, and we greatly appreciate all of the input. Working with our court stakeholders, I’m confident we can preserve the rule of law and protect the rights of victims, the accused, litigants, families and children, and all who seek justice. It’s truly a team effort.”

The council received and considered more than 100 written comments on the new rules from judges, public defenders, district attorneys, law enforcement, legal aid and advocacy groups, unions, attorneys, court reporters, interpreters, and other justice system partners.

Among the actions the council approved, to go into effect immediately:

• Suspend the entry of defaults in eviction cases;
• Suspend judicial foreclosures;
• Allow courts to require judicial proceedings and court operations be conducted remotely, with the defendant’s consent in criminal proceedings;
• Adopt a statewide emergency bail schedule that sets bail at $0 for most misdemeanor and lower-level felony offenses;
• Allow defendants to appear via counsel or remote technologies for pretrial criminal hearings;
• Prioritize hearings and orders in juvenile justice proceedings and set a structure for remote hearings and continuances
• Extend the timeframes for specified temporary restraining orders;
• Extend the statutes of limitations governing civil actions; and
• Allow electronic depositions in civil cases.

The council previously approved a number of temporary measures at its first emergency meeting Mar. 28 to give courts flexibility to continue to provide essential services to the public while protecting health and safety during the pandemic.

For a complete list of emergency orders taken by the California court system in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, see the California Courts Newsroom.

About the Judicial Council

Under the leadership of the Chief Justice and in accordance with the California Constitution, the council is responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice. Judicial Council staff implements the council’s policies.

By Allen Payton

Antioch Realtor and rental property owner Mark Jordan sent a “Cease and Desist Demand” to the members of the Antioch City Council on Friday, April 3 in response to their vote on March 31 to place a moratorium on evictions for both residential and commercial properties. The council’s actions give renters up to 90 days to repay for each month of rent they are unable to pay during the coronavirus pandemic. (See related article)

Following is Jordan’s email sent to Mayor Sean Wright and the four council members:

“Mr. Write (sic) and Council Members,

Please be advised that this letter constitutes a Cease and Desist Demand concerning the City of Antioch’s tortious interference in the terms of all rental agreements executed within the City of Antioch and which effect non owner occupied real property both residential and commercial.  (See action taken by Council March 31, 2020).

This Demand in no way acts to invalidate or argue the validity of Executive Order N-28-20 issued by the State of California.

You must rescind and revoke your order made March 31, 2020 and cease from your unlawful actions.  If you fail to act it is highly likely you will be faced with class action litigation which will most likely include significant punitive damages.  Understand clearly, this will most likely cost the City of Antioch million of dollars. You are not acting within the authority of Executive Order N-28-20.

Yes, I fully understand the nature of our world wide heath issue and the shelter in place order issued by the County Health Department. I further understand, and have read Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-28-20.  The question is; have any of you?

In your meeting of March 31, 2020 you have gone far beyond the State’s granted authority.  There is nothing within the Paragraphs 1 through 6 inclusive, granting you the power to determine the deferred rent payment and time period for a deferred payment.  This City governmental interference is therefore tortious interference at its face.

These are matters to be determined by the parties to the contracts and are subject to judicial review, not City dictate.

Given that you have acted illegally it is my position that your entire moratorium and action taken is without force or effect. Please remember you have no power or authority except through the State of California and an authority granted to you by the State. Please review the State Constitution.

Your rescission of the moratorium is required immediately.

Mark Jordan”

In the past, Jordan has been successful suing the city. In 2016 he sued the City of Antioch for misappropriating funds from the water fees paid by residents and using them to pay for police. As a result, the City had to repay the water fund the amount that had been spent on police services. (See related article)

Asked if he had lined up other property owners to join him in a class action lawsuit, Jordan simply responded, “No I have not.”

An email to City Attorney Thomas Smith was sent Saturday morning seeking a response to questions about the threatened lawsuit. Please check back later for updates to this report.