John Leonard Sinatra

“ The Supreme Court instructs that “government regulations are not neutral and generally applicable, and therefore trigger strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause, whenever they treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise.” Tandon, 141 S.Ct. at 1296 (emphasis in original) . It is “no answer that a State treats some comparable secular businesses or other activities as poorly as or even less favorably than the religious exercise at issue.” ”

“ A preliminary injunction would, however, serve the public interest of fostering self-defense in houses of worship across the state. The public has a significant interest in the “strong sense of the safety that a licensed concealed handgun regularly provides, or would provide, to the many law-abiding responsible citizens in the state too powerless to physically defend themselves in public without a handgun.” ”

“ The Supreme Court instructs that “a component” of a church’s “autonomy is the selection of the individuals who play certain key roles.” Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch., 140 S.Ct. at 2060 (emphasis added) . The Establishment Clause protects Plaintiffs’ conduct. Indeed, the place of worship exclusion encroaches on matters “closely linked” with the Church’s right to determine how best to conduct its own affairs. ”

“ In other words, Plaintiffs seeks to restore the status that existed before implementation of the houses of worship exclusion. They therefore seeks a prohibitory—not a mandatory—injunction. As stated in Hardaway, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights represent the status quo—not 2022 legislation on the books for a few months. ”

“ Even if these individuals were to volunteer to provide security at the Church, they could not conceivably protect the approximately 800 individuals who worship at the Church throughout each week—given that they have day jobs and “work a lot of hours.” And to the extent the Church hired private security guards or police officers to protect the congregation, the financial burden would necessarily reduce the amount of ministry the Church could perform. ”

“ This does not relieve the burden the new law places upon Plaintiffs’ religious practices.
Pastor Spencer testified that members of the Church’s security team of congregants protect the congregation pursuant to a calling from God. Hired outside security, Spencer believes, is not an adequate substitute because such individuals would be working for a paycheck—not acting pursuant to a spiritual calling. For this reason, he believes hired security would be far less effective than the organic security team at protecting the flock. ”

“ In sum, on this record, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the State permits countless other private actors hosting secular activities to do what a house of worship may not. The houses of worship exclusion is not a neutral law of general applicability. ”

“ And they were passed nearly a century after the Second Amendment’s ratification in 1791. These outlier enactments also contrast with colonial-era enactments that, in fact, mandated such carry at places of worship. See generally Benjamin Boyd, Take Your Guns to Church: The Second Amendment and Church Autonomy, 8 Liberty Univ. L. Rev. 653, 699 (2014) . The State’s proffered enactments are far too remote, far too anachronistic, and very much outliers—insufficient, then, in the search for an American tradition. ”

“ In short, he “carried and allowed others to carry” concealed firearms at church “to ensure protection of the Church and its worshippers in case of violent confrontation” in accordance with their religious beliefs. Id. He would have continued to do so “but for the enactment and enforcement” of the place of worship exclusion. Id.
The State argues that the place of worship exclusion “does not foreclose Plaintiffs’ ability to protect worshippers at [the] [C] hurch with armed individuals.” Dkt. ”