Calvary Chapel San Jose says state orders punished religious exercise while exempting comparable secular activity
Calvary Chapel San Jose wants the U.S. Supreme Court to answer a question that goes to the heart of constitutional protections: Can a church be fined more than $1.2 million for holding worship services during the pandemic when the same state rules allowed exemptions for secular activities like dining, sports, and haircuts?
The church, along with its senior pastor, Mike McClure, filed a petition for certiorari on December 13, 2025, asking the Court to review a California appellate ruling that upheld the fines. Their argument is grounded in the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. They also urge the Court to reconsider or overturn Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the decision that has limited religious liberty claims for decades.
Under California’s pandemic orders, churches were classified as “businesses” and required to follow strict health protocols: mask mandates, social distancing, and capacity limits. But as the petition details, exemptions existed for many secular activities. Athletes could train and compete unmasked. Customers could remove face coverings for facials or while dining indoors. Yet religious gatherings, including singing and Communion, remained restricted with no religious exemptions.
Calvary Chapel continued to meet in person, citing their belief that in-person worship, including singing and partaking in Communion, is not optional. They believe Scripture commands it. As Pastor McClure stated in court filings, the church teaches that worship should be conducted “with unveiled faces,” referencing 2 Corinthians 3:18.
When the church refused to comply, Santa Clara County filed suit, obtained an injunction, and eventually sought nearly $3 million in fines. A state appellate court later struck down the injunction as unconstitutional, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in similar church lockdown cases like Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo and Tandon v. Newsom. But in a separate ruling in April 2025, the California Court of Appeal upheld $1,228,700 in fines tied to alleged violations of face mask requirements.
The church argues that result cannot stand. The Constitution, they say, does not allow government to fine people millions of dollars for following their faith—especially when others are given a pass for comparable activities.
Here’s the issue in plain terms: If it’s safe enough to eat indoors, why isn’t it safe enough to pray indoors? If mask exemptions are available for working out or talking with a hearing-impaired person, why not for worship that involves singing, preaching, and Communion? The virus didn’t make moral distinctions. The government did.
This is not about churches seeking special treatment. It’s about being treated equally under the law. The petition cites U.S. Supreme Court precedent that says when secular activities get carve-outs, religious ones must too—unless the government meets the highest level of legal scrutiny. California never had to justify why worship was riskier than football or a haircut.
Calvary Chapel also argues that the fines violate the Eighth Amendment. Fines must be proportionate to the harm done. But in this case, there was no clear harm. A county health official testified that it was “difficult, if not impossible,” to trace COVID transmission to the church’s services. The county nonetheless imposed fines totaling more than $1 million, plus interest and pending attorney fees.
The church says that’s an unconstitutional penalty for following religious convictions. They’re not alone in that view. The petition notes that several Supreme Court justices have questioned whether Smith should remain good law. In Fulton v. Philadelphia (2021), Justice Alito called Smith “ripe for reexamination.” Justice Barrett described its logic as “difficult to see.”
The petition also proposes something new: a “liturgical exception.” Just as courts have recognized a “ministerial exception” barring government interference in clergy hiring, Calvary Chapel argues that courts should also recognize that government has no business regulating how worship is conducted. They say deciding whether Communion requires unmasked participation, or whether singing is essential, isn’t a government call—it’s a religious one.
The state appellate court, however, found that the rules were “generally applicable” and that the church’s conduct showed high culpability because it defied public health orders. The fines, in the court’s view, were not excessive. The California Supreme Court denied review in July 2025.
The U.S. Supreme Court is now being asked to take up the case. The petition was filed within the extended deadline authorized by Justice Kagan. A decision on whether the Court will grant review is expected in early 2026.
TLDR (Too Long / Didn’t Read Summary)
Calvary Chapel San Jose and its pastor were fined $1.2 million for holding indoor worship services during California’s COVID-19 restrictions. The church argues the state allowed secular exceptions—for sports, dining, and more—but not religious ones, violating the Free Exercise Clause. They also argue the fine is unconstitutionally excessive under the Eighth Amendment. Their petition to the Supreme Court asks for review and urges the Court to either apply strict scrutiny, recognize a “liturgical exception,” or overrule Employment Division v. Smith. A response from the Court is expected in 2026.
Case Caption and Source
Calvary Chapel San Jose and Pastor Mike McClure v. County of Santa Clara, State of California, and Dr. Sara Cody
http://media.aclj.org/pdf/Calvary-Chapel-petition-for-certiorari-(final)_Redacted.pdf
If you found this report helpful, please like, share, and subscribe to ReligiousLiberty.TV at religiouslibertytv.substack.com to stay current on legal battles over faith and freedom. Subscribing gives you early access to case documents, analysis, and updates on pending litigation.
AI Disclaimer
This article was prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed for accuracy. It is intended for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For personalized legal guidance, contact a licensed attorney.
SEO Tags:
Calvary Chapel SCOTUS petition, COVID religious fines, excessive fines Eighth Amendment, free exercise Clause exemptions, liturgical exception case
Source: ReligiousLibertyTV on Substack
