Cassell v. Snyders

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiffs-church members' request for preliminary injunction in section 1983 action, alleging that Governor's Executive Order that imposed 10-person limit on religious gatherings in order to curtail spread of coronavirus violated plaintiffs' First Amendment rights and rights under Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. While case law supported Dist. Ct.'s denial of request for preliminary injunction on ground that plaintiffs were not likely to prevail on merits of their claims, subsequent Supreme Ct. decision in Roman Catholic Diocese (415 S.Ct. 631 (2020)) suggests that plaintiffs may prevail on merits of their First Amendment claim. However, there is no compelling need at this juncture to issue preliminary injunction, even if plaintiffs are likely to prevail on merits of their claim, where: (1) Governor has rescinded said limitation and has not re-imposed said limitation for nine-month period; (2) instant limitation was created in context of State's attempt to protect public health in face of contagious virus; and (3) risk of irreparable injury to plaintiffs in failing to impose preliminary injunction is very low, even if plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim. Ct. further noted that plaintiffs' state-law claims against Governor are barred by 11th Amendment, and while 11^th Amendment bar generally does not apply to counties or similar municipal corporations, record was unclear whether instant local defendants, who delivered to plaintiffs cease and desist order, were following state policy, which would immunize them under 11^th Amendment.