## Facts

- A private Christian school operated in Michigan during the COVID-19 pandemic while statewide public-health orders required masking, distancing, and limits on in-person gatherings.
- Local health officials received complaints that the school was not complying with masking and distancing requirements.
- After informal compliance efforts, the county health department issued a cease-and-desist order directing the school to stop violating the state emergency order.
- The county later learned that two teachers tested positive for COVID-19 and issued a second cease-and-desist order requiring the school to notify families and provide close-contact information for contact tracing.
- The second order warned that if the school refused to cooperate, all staff and students would be treated as close contacts and in-person operations would have to stop for a mandatory 14-day quarantine.
- The school did not comply with the second order, and the county moved to require temporary cessation of in-person instruction.
- The school sued state and local officials for injunctive and declaratory relief, asserting First Amendment violations and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process violations (and analogous state-constitutional claims).

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the challenged COVID-19 public-health orders.
2. Whether the county’s cease-and-desist and temporary closure actions likely violated procedural due process by depriving the school (and parents) of a protected liberty interest without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard.
3. Whether the public-health orders and enforcement actions likely violated the First Amendment by burdening free exercise, speech, or association, including whether the measures were neutral and generally applicable.
4. Whether federal-court restraint was warranted given federalism and comity concerns surrounding state and local public-health enforcement.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court found the plaintiff had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of its federal constitutional claims.
- The court concluded that, in the context of an outbreak and contact-tracing demands, the temporary closure measures did not clearly amount to an unconstitutional deprivation of process at the preliminary-injunction stage.
- The court determined the challenged measures were neutral and generally applicable public-health rules and that the record did not show disfavored treatment of religious schools compared to comparable secular entities.
- The court held that the balance of equities and public interest favored enforcement of reasonable public-health measures aimed at limiting COVID-19 transmission.
- The court declined to grant relief that would effectively interfere with state and local public-health enforcement activity.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring the movant to show likelihood of success, irreparable harm, that the balance of harms favors relief, and that an injunction serves the public interest.
- In a public-health emergency, government officials may impose temporary, time-limited restrictions reasonably tied to disease-control objectives, and process may be satisfied through actual notice, opportunities to comply, and the availability of post-deprivation review.
- Under prevailing free-exercise doctrine, neutral and generally applicable regulations that incidentally burden religious practice are ordinarily evaluated under rational-basis review rather than strict scrutiny.
- When assessing equitable factors, courts may give substantial weight to the public interest in reducing the spread of a communicable disease, particularly where restrictions are limited in duration and supported by evidence of infection risk.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enjoin COVID-19 masking, distancing, and quarantine-related enforcement against a religious school, concluding that the plaintiff did not show a likely First or Fourteenth Amendment violation and that the balance of equities and public interest favored temporary measures aimed at controlling disease spread.


Libertas Classical Ass'n v. Whitmer, 498 F. Supp. 3d 961 (W.D. Mich. 2020)