Salem, Oregon — The Oregon Supreme Court late Monday halted a rural judge's order from earlier in the day that tossed out statewiderestrictions imposed by Democratic Gov. Kate Brown. Baker County Circuit Judge Matthew Shirtcliff had ruled that Brown erred by not seeking the Legislature's approval to extend the stay-at-home orders beyond a 28-day limit.
The Supreme Court's ruling stays Shirtcliff's decision pending a review by all the high court justices.
In a statement, Brown praised the Supreme Court action.
Shirtcliff issued his opinion in response to a lawsuit filed earlier this month by 10 churches around Oregon that argued the state's social distancing directives were unconstitutional.
In a statement after Shirtcliff's ruling, Brown said: "The science behind these executive orders hasn't changed one bit. Ongoing physical distancing, staying home as much as possible, and wearing face coverings will save lives across Oregon."
In a seven-page opinion, Shirtcliff wrote that the damage to Oregonians and their livelihood was greater than the dangers presented by the coronavirus. He also noted that other businesses deemed essential, such as grocery stores, had been allowed to remain open even with large numbers of people present and have relied on masks, social distancing and other measures to protect the public.
"The governor's orders are not required for public safety when plaintiffs can continue to utilize social distancing and safety protocols at larger gatherings involving spiritual worship," he wrote.
Courts in other states have ruled against similar orders. The Wisconsin Supreme CourtGovernor Tony Evers' stay-at-home order last week, ruling that his administration overstepped its authority when it extended the order for another month without consulting legislators.
A federal judge in North Carolina on Saturday sided with conservative Christian leaders and blocked the enforcement of restrictions that Governor Roy Cooper ordered affecting indoor religious services during the pandemic.
The order from Judge James C. Dever III came days after two churches, a minister and a Christian revival group filed a federal lawsuit seeking to immediately block enforcement of rules covering religious services within the Democratic governor's executive orders.
In Louisiana, however, a federal judge refused a minister's request to temporarily halt Governor John Bel Edwards' stay-at-home order, which expired that same day.
Shirtcliff's ruling in Oregon turned on the legal mechanism Brown used to issue her orders. The plaintiffs alleged — and the judge agreed — that they were issued under a statute pertaining to public health emergencies, not an older provision that addresses natural disasters such as storms, earthquakes or floods.
The public health statute contains the 28-day time limit, while the other would have given Brown broader powers but wasn't relevant in the current situation, said Kevin Mannix, who is representing business owners in the case.
California, Washington state and New York — other states where governors have— give their governors more power in public health emergencies, but Oregon law puts a specific clock on those "extraordinary powers," he said.
"Maybe other states will take a lesson from us in the future about what to do about public health emergencies," Mannix said. "We've thought about it, we've balanced the powers of the governor with the powers of the people and their representatives."
Brown declared a statewide state of emergency on March 8 and has issued multiple executive orders since then, including the closure of all schools, non-essential businesses and a ban on dine-in service at restaurants and bars.
Earlier this month, Brown extended the order another 60 days until July 6. All but a handful of Oregon counties, however, got the state's approval to begin loosening those restrictions last Friday.
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum had urged residents to abide by the stay-at-home orders while the ruling was being appealed.
Attorney Ray Hacke, who represented the plaintiffs in the case, said Shirtcliff's ruling was a vindication not just for freedom of religion, but for all freedoms of people in the state.
"Praise God. I'm excited, and I'm glad that the judge saw that there are limitations on the governor's power, even in the midst of emergencies," he said. "If people want to get their haircut, they can. They can leave their home for any reason whether it's deemed essential in the eye of the state or not."