Verified First Amended Complaint — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada · No. 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB · Doc. 8 · 2020-05-28 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jason D. Guinasso (SBN# 8478) 
500 Damonte Ranch Pkwy, Suite 980 
Reno, NV 89521 
Telephone: (775) 853-8746 
jguinasso@hutchlegal.com 
Kristen K. Waggoner (AZ Bar 032382)* 
Ryan J. Tucker (AZ Bar 034382)* 
Jeremiah Galus (AZ Bar 030469)* 
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 
15100 N. 90th Street 
Scottsdale, AZ  85260 
Telephone: (480) 444-0020 
kwaggoner@adflegal.org 
rtucker@adflegal.org 
jgalus@adflegal.org 
David A. Cortman (GA Bar 188810)* 
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 
1000 Hurricane Shoals Rd. NE 
Ste. D-1100 
Lawrenceville, GA 30043 
Telephone: (770) 339-0774 
dcortman@ADFlegal.org 
*Pro hac vice application forthcoming 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEVADA 
 
CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY, 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
STEVE SISOLAK, in his official capacity as 
Governor of Nevada; AARON FORD, in his 
official capacity as Attorney General of 
Nevada; FRANK HUNEWILL, in his official 
capacity as Sheriff of Lyon County, 
 
 
Defendants. 
 
Case No.: 3:20-CV-00303-LRH-CLB 
 
 
 
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED 
COMPLAINT FOR 
DECLARATORY AND 
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 
 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 1 of 20

 
1 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
INTRODUCTION 
1. 
Four days after filing of the initial complaint in this case, Governor 
Steve Sisolak announced that Nevada would be moving into Phase 2 of the state’s 
reopening plan on Friday, May 29. But instead of fixing the serious constitutional 
problems identified in the initial complaint, the Governor has chosen to make them 
worse.  
2. 
The initial complaint challenged the Governor’s emergency orders 
prohibiting churches and other places of worship from holding in-person worship 
services of ten or more people, even when such services could be held in accordance 
with social distancing and public health guidelines. In addition to spawning this 
lawsuit, that prohibition caused the U.S. Department of Justice on Monday to urge 
the Governor “to help preserve the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by 
amending earlier Emergency Directives and remedying their unequal treatment of 
places of worship.” DOJ Letter, May 25, 2020, attached as Exhibit 1. The Governor 
has failed to do so. 
3. 
For over two months, Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley (the “Church”) 
has been unable to hold an in-person worship service due to Covid-19 and the 
Governor’s orders. The Church has patiently waited for Governor Sisolak to restore 
its First Amendment freedoms, trusting that the Governor would prioritize 
constitutional rights and allow churches to resume in-person worship services at the 
earliest opportunity. 
4. 
But that trust has been shattered. Instead of prioritizing religious 
freedom, the Governor has moved “non-essential” secular businesses and activities 
to the front of the line and pushed churches towards the back. Even before his 
Phase 2 announcement, the Governor allowed restaurants and food establishments 
to resume in-person, on-site dining at 50% capacity, allowed all retail 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 2 of 20

 
2 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
establishments to open at 50% capacity, and threw open the doors of nail care 
salons, hair salons, and barber shops—businesses that the Governor’s own orders 
say “promote extended periods of public interaction where the risk of [Covid-19] 
transmission is high.”  
5. 
Moreover, the Governor has now announced that the following “non-
essential” businesses can reopen in Phase 2: 
• Gyms and fitness facilities, including group fitness classes, up to 50% 
building capacity; 
• Bars and taverns, up to 50% capacity; 
• Salons and other businesses that provide aesthetic or skin services, 
including facials, hair removal, tanning, eyelash services, eyebrow 
threading, and salt therapy; 
• Day and overnight spas; 
• Massage services; 
• Body art and piercing establishments; 
• Aquatic facilities and swimming pools, up to 50% capacity; 
• Water parks, up to 50% capacity; 
• Museums, art galleries, zoos and aquariums, up to 50% capacity; 
• Outdoor venues, like mini golf and amusement parks; 
• Indoor venues, like movie theaters, bowling alleys, and indoor malls, up to 
50% capacity; and 
• Casinos (starting June 4). 
6. 
Incredibly, the Governor’s Phase 2 plan prohibits churches and places 
of worship from opening their doors to more than 50 people under any circumstance 
(the “Church Gathering Ban”).  
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 3 of 20

 
3 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
7. 
Regardless of the Governor’s purported reasons for this disparate 
treatment, they cannot survive constitutional scrutiny. Under the Free Exercise 
Clause, a law is not generally applicable, and thus triggers strict scrutiny, when it 
“fail[s] to prohibit nonreligious conduct that endangers” the government’s interest 
“in a similar or greater degree” than the prohibited religious conduct. Church of the 
Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 542 (1993). That is 
exactly what the exemptions under the Governor’s orders do. 
8. 
Indeed, under the Governor’s orders, large numbers of people can 
gather for a similar or greater amount of time as a church service at restaurants, 
non-essential retail establishments, nail salons, hair salons, barber shops, gyms, 
fitness facilities, pools, water parks, museums, aquariums, amusement parks, 
indoor malls, bowling alleys, movie theaters, and casinos, but it is illegal for the 
Church—which is located in rural Lyon County—to hold in-person services with 
more than 50 people.   
9. 
This is unconstitutional, and it makes no sense. As of May 25, 2020, 
Carson City Health and Human Services reports that Lyon County has only 12 
active cases of Covid-19. See Lyon County Covid-19 Data, attached as Exhibit 2. 
With a population of approximately 57,510, that means the per capita rate of active 
Covid-19 infections in Lyon County is approximately 0.021%.  
10. 
Consistent with its religious beliefs, the Church plans to resume in-
person worship services on Sunday, May 31, and has developed comprehensive 
social distancing and health and safety protocols to govern those services. Despite 
these health and safety measures, however, the Governor’s Church Gathering Ban 
threatens the Church with criminal and civil penalties. 
11. 
Without a temporary restraining order and injunction, the Church will 
face criminal and civil penalties for assembling and worshipping God. A temporary 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 4 of 20

 
4 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
restraining order and injunction are therefore needed to preserve the Church’s 
constitutional rights. 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 
12. 
This civil rights action raises federal questions under the United 
States Constitution, specifically the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and under 
federal law, particularly 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 
13. 
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 
1343. 
14. 
This Court has authority to grant the requested declaratory relief 
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, the requested injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 
1343, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 
15. 
Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a 
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this 
district and Defendants reside in this district. 
PARTIES 
16. 
Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley (the “Church”) is a nonprofit church 
organized exclusively for religious purposes within the meaning of § 501(c)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code. The Church is in Dayton, Nevada (Lyon County). 
17. 
Defendant Steve Sisolak is the Governor of Nevada. Governor Sisolak 
is responsible for issuing and enforcing the Church Gathering Ban. He is sued in his 
official capacity only. 
18. 
Defendant Aaron Ford is Nevada’s Attorney General. Attorney General 
Ford is authorized to enforce and prosecute violations of the Church Gathering Ban. 
He is sued in his official capacity only. 
19. 
Defendant Frank Hunewill is the Sheriff of Lyon County. As Sheriff of 
Lyon County, Defendant Hunewill has the power, both personally and through his 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 5 of 20

 
5 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
subordinates, to enforce the Church Gathering Ban. He is sued in his official 
capacity only. 
FACTS 
Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley 
20. 
Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley has operated as a Christian church in 
Dayton, Nevada since February 5, 2006. 
21. 
The Church believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and 
infallible rule of faith and practice. 
22. 
Thus, the Bible is the foundation upon which the Church operates and 
is the basis on which it is governed. 
23. 
The Church believes, among other things, that the Bible commands 
Christians to gather together in person for corporate prayer, worship, and 
fellowship and that such assembly is necessary and good for the Church and its 
members’ spiritual growth. 
24. 
Consistent with that belief, the Church’s mission and purpose is: (1) to 
continue steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of 
bread, and in prayers; (2) to worship God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; (3) to 
build up the Church of Jesus Christ through the teaching of the Word of God and 
the ministry of the Holy Spirit; and (4) to persuade men and women to repent and 
confess Jesus Christ as Lord. 
The Church’s Response to Covid-19  
and Plan to Resume In-Person Services 
25. 
In response to federal, state, and local guidance at the beginning of the 
Covid-19 outbreak—but before any local or state order prohibited in-person 
gatherings—the Church voluntarily adopted rigorous social distancing and health 
safety measures for its services. 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 6 of 20

 
6 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
26. 
In fact, immediately after the Governor declared a state of emergency 
on March 12, the Church took proactive steps for its upcoming March 15 services.  
27. 
The Church disinfected frequently touched surfaces such as door 
handles, chairs, and tables before and after services; made hand sanitizer available 
in multiple locations throughout the building’s common areas; advised church 
attendees to refrain from personal contact such as handshakes and hugs; instructed 
those who felt sick or lived with someone who felt sick to stay home; and encouraged 
online giving through the Church’s website, among other things.  
28. 
And the next day, on March 16, 2020, the Church temporarily 
suspended in-person worship services and began streaming its services online. 
29. 
More than two months later, the Governor’s orders have prevented the 
Church from resuming in-person worship services. 
30. 
Although the Church’s initial decision to temporarily suspend in-
person services was voluntary, and made in an abundance of caution given the 
health and safety concerns at the time, the Church believes it is called to resume in-
person worship services, consistent with its religious beliefs about corporate prayer, 
worship, and fellowship.  
31. 
The Church sincerely believes that online services and drive-in 
services do not meet the Bible’s requirement that the Church meet together in 
person for corporate worship. 
32. 
In addition, some of the Church’s parishioners do not have internet 
access or the ability to participate in online services. 
33. 
The Church thus plans to resume in-person worship services on May 
31, 2020 (Pentecost Sunday), but the Church Gathering Ban makes such services 
illegal and would subject the Church to possible criminal and civil penalties. 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 7 of 20

 
7 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
34. 
Before Covid-19, the Church’s two Sunday services could hold up to 
200 people each. 
35. 
The Church seeks to hold in-person services at 50% of its sanctuary’s 
capacity while also providing for proper social distancing of at least six feet 
separation between families and individuals, which would amount to approximately 
90 people in a service.  
36. 
In preparation for resuming in-person worship services, the Church 
has adopted—and will follow—strict social distancing and health and safety 
protocols.  
37. 
These protocols include the following precautions: 
• 
Holding Sunday and Wednesday services; 
• 
Strictly limiting Sunday services to 45 minutes (as opposed to the 
usual 90 minutes); 
• 
Holding up to three services each Sunday to guarantee adequate space 
for social distancing at each service; 
• 
Providing ½ hour between services to allow for thorough cleaning and 
sanitizing of sanctuary, hallways, bathrooms, and common surfaces; 
• 
Posting signs on walls and floors to direct traffic; 
• 
Posting signs on restroom doors limiting use to one person at a time; 
• 
Posting signs in the restrooms encouraging proper washing of hands; 
• 
Making hand sanitizer stations easily accessible to attendees; 
• 
Encouraging attendees to arrive no earlier than 25 minutes before 
service; 
• 
Using parking attendants to direct cars to designated parking areas; 
• 
Directing all attendees to a designated entrance; 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 8 of 20

 
8 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
• 
Directing attendees to sanctuary seating designed to provide 6-feet of 
separation between families and individuals; 
• 
Ensuring that all traffic for each service will be in one direction by 
using “first in, last out” model; 
• 
Advising attendees of proper social distancing protocols; 
• 
Encouraging attendees to bring and wear face coverings; 
• 
Requiring all servants greeting or directing attendees to wear face 
coverings; 
• 
Prohibiting any handouts or items to be passed to attendees during 
services; 
• 
Prohibiting snacks or coffee from being served; 
• 
Using prepacked Communion elements whenever served; 
• 
Directing attendees out of the building to the parking area at the end 
of each service; 
• 
Instructing attendees to refrain from congregating in the building. 
The Governor’s Orders 
38. 
On March 12, 2020, Governor Sisolak declared a state of emergency in 
response to the Covid-19 outbreak. See Declaration of Emergency, attached as 
Exhibit 3. 
39. 
Noting that the Nevada Constitution gives him “[t]he supreme 
executive power of this State,” Governor Sisolak “direct[ed] all state agencies to 
supplement the efforts of all impacted and threatened counties” and announced that 
he would “perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as are 
necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian 
population.” Id. 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 9 of 20

 
9 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
40. 
Five days later, on March 17, 2020, Governor Sisolak held a press 
conference and explained steps the State would be taking to mitigate the risks 
associated with Covid-19. See Press Release (Mar. 17, 2020), attached as Exhibit 4. 
41. 
While Governor Sisolak encouraged “faith leaders” during that press 
conference “to find ways to deliver to your congregation without bringing them 
together in person,” he assured them that he “cannot and will not say that places of 
worship should be closed.” Id. at 4. 
“Essential” and “Non-Essential” Businesses 
42. 
Three days later, Governor Sisolak issued an order mandating the 
closure of all “Non-Essential Businesses.” See Declaration of Emergency Directive 
003, attached as Exhibit 5. 
43. 
The Governor’s order defined “Non-Essential Businesses” to include, 
among other things, businesses that “promote recreational social gathering 
activities” and businesses that “promote extended periods of public interaction 
where the risk of [Covid-19] transmission is high,” including “beauty shops, barber 
shops, [and] nail salons.” Id., §§ 1, 2.   
44. 
Likewise, the Governor’s order limited restaurants and food 
establishments to “take-out, drive-through, curbside pickup, [and] delivery” service 
and prohibited them from providing dine-in service to any customers. Id., § 3. 
45. 
The Governor’s order did not close “Essential Licensed Business[es]” 
but rather encouraged them “to continue operation.” Id., § 4.  
46. 
In addition, the Governor’s order stated that “[t]he construction, 
mining, manufacturing, and infrastructure sector labor force may continue 
operations.” Id., § 6.  
47. 
In connection with the Governor’s order, the Nevada Department of 
Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management, adopted emergency regulations 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 10 of 20

 
10 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
further defining “essential” and “non-essential” businesses. See Emergency 
Regulations, March 20, 2020, attached as Exhibit 6. 
48. 
Businesses not delineated in the Governor’s order or in the emergency 
regulations could continue operations if they could “implement social distancing 
safeguards for the protection of their employees” and, “[t]o the extent practicable, 
provide services without causing members of the Nevada general public to 
congregate in a manner contrary to social distancing goals of a minimum of six feet 
of separation for more than incidental contact.” Ex. 5, § 8. 
49. 
Because neither the Governor’s order nor the emergency regulations 
referenced churches or places of worship, they should have been allowed to continue 
operations and in-person services. 
The Church Gathering Ban 
50. 
A few days later, Governor Sisolak issued another order—this time 
forbidding the “general public” from “gather[ing] in groups of ten or more in any 
indoor or outdoor area.” Declaration of Emergency Directive 007, § 1, attached as 
Exhibit 7.  
51. 
The Governor issued his stay-at-home order shortly thereafter. See 
Declaration of Emergency Directive 010, attached as Exhibit 8. 
52. 
And even though Governor Sisolak assured faith leaders that he would 
not and could not close houses of worship, he later prohibited “[p]laces of worship” 
from “hold[ing] in-person worship services where ten or more persons may gather.” 
Declaration of Emergency Directive 013, § 4, attached as Exhibit 9. 
53. 
Related guidance from the Governor’s office claimed that “this is not 
yet the time to get people together to celebrate their faith” and that “nobody should 
be physically attending in-person worship services.” Guidance: Directive 013 (Apr. 
8, 2020), attached as Exhibit 10. 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 11 of 20

 
11 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
54. 
Governor Sisolak continued to impose this ten-person restriction on 
churches during Phase 1 of the state’s reopening plan. See Declaration of 
Emergency Directive 016, § 10, attached as Exhibit 11; Declaration of Emergency 
Directive 018, § 7, attached as Exhibit 12.  
55. 
On May 26, 2020, Governor Sisolak announced that Nevada would be 
moving into Phase 2 of the state’s reopening plan on Friday, May 29. See Press 
Release (May 26, 2020), attached as Exhibit 13. 
56. 
Although the Governor announced that even more “non-essential” 
businesses and activities will be allowed in Phase 2, in-person worship services will 
be limited to no more than 50 people.  
57. 
The Church Gathering Ban is indefinite. 
Secular Exceptions to the Gathering Bans 
58. 
There are numerous secular exceptions to the Governor’s gathering 
restrictions. 
59. 
For one thing, the Governor’s ban on gatherings of more than 50 people 
does not apply to persons working at or patronizing Essential Licensed Businesses 
or providing essential services to the public.  
60. 
Thus, more than 50 people can gather for an extended period of time 
to, among other things, work at or patronize:  
• 
“Essential infrastructure operations,” including “airport[s]”; 
• 
“Businesses that ship or deliver goods directly to residences”; 
• 
“Banks and Financial Institutions”; 
• 
“Pawnbrokers”; 
• 
Businesses or entities that provide “social services for economically 
disadvantaged individuals, vulnerable populations, or victims of 
crime”; 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 12 of 20

 
12 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
• 
“Laundromats and dry cleaners”; 
• 
“Warehouses and storage facilities”; 
• 
“Professional or technical services including legal, accounting, tax, 
payroll, real estate, and property management services”; 
• 
“Child care facilities”; and 
• 
“Newspapers, television, radio, and other media services.” 
Ex. 6 (NAC 414.XXX(1)). 
61. 
What is more, Governor Sisolak’s “Phase One” order exempts some 
“non-essential” businesses and activities from the gathering restrictions. For 
example, the Governor’s “Phase One” order allows: 
• 
All restaurants and food establishments to resume onsite, in-person 
dining—up to “50% of the maximum seating capacity under normal 
circumstances”; 
• 
All retail businesses to reopen at 50% capacity; 
• 
Auto showrooms, furniture showrooms, home furnishing showrooms, 
and appliance showrooms to reopen at 50% capacity; 
• 
Cannabis dispensaries to resume in-person sales; and 
• 
Nail care salons, hair salons, and barber shops to reopen. 
Ex. 12, §§ 13, 15, 16, 17, 22; see also Ex. 9, § 3.  
62. 
By allowing restaurants, food establishments, nail care salons, hair 
salons, and barber shops to reopen, the Governor has allowed businesses and 
entities to reopen that the State previously determined “promote extended periods 
of public interaction where the risk of [Covid-19] transmission is high.” Ex. 5, § 2. 
63. 
These exemptions continue during Phase 2 of the Governor’s reopening 
plan. 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 13 of 20

 
13 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
64. 
In addition, the Governor has exempted the following “non-essential” 
businesses for Phase 2: 
• Gyms and fitness facilities, including group fitness classes, up to 50% 
building capacity; 
• Bars and taverns, up to 50% capacity; 
• Salons and other businesses that provide aesthetic or skin services, 
including facials, hair removal, tanning, eyelash services, eyebrow 
threading, and salt therapy; 
• Day and overnight spas; 
• Massage services; 
• Body art and piercing establishments; 
• Aquatic facilities and swimming pools, up to 50% capacity; 
• Water parks, up to 50% capacity; 
• Museums, art galleries, zoos and aquariums, up to 50% capacity; 
• Outdoor venues, like mini golf and amusement parks; 
• Indoor venues, like movie theaters, bowling alleys, and indoor malls, up to 
50% capacity; and 
• Casinos (starting June 4). 
Ex. 13; see also Road Map to Recovery Chart, attached as Exhibit 14. 
65. 
Yet the Governor refuses to provide a similar accommodation to 
churches and other places of worship. 
66. 
Nor has the Governor given any indication of when churches can 
expect to resume in-person services with more than 50 people.  
67. 
In fact, on May 14, 2020, nearly 200 hundred churches (including 
Plaintiff) sent a letter to Governor Sisolak respectfully asking him to treat houses of 
worship equally and lift the ban on in-person worship services. At a press 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 14 of 20

 
14 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
conference the next day, and in response to a question about whether he received 
and read the letter from the churches, the Governor first answered no but then said 
he read “parts of the letter.” 
68. 
If the Church does not comply with the Governor’s orders or emergency 
regulations, it would be “subject to criminal prosecution and civil penalties.” Ex. 5, § 
9; Ex. 7, § 5; see also Ex. 9, § 11.  
69. 
The Nevada Attorney General and “[a]ll law enforcement agencies in 
the State of Nevada,” including the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office, are authorized to 
enforce the Governor’s orders and the emergency regulations. Ex. 5, § 9; Ex. 7, § 5; 
see also Ex. 9, § 11. 
70. 
Thus, Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley may not hold its planned in-
person services without subjecting itself to criminal and civil penalties, even though 
its services would amount to less than 50% of the building’s capacity and would 
adhere to strict social distancing and sanitation measures.  
71. 
But Governor Sisolak does not have the authority under Nevada law to 
impose the Church Gathering Ban. 
72. 
Rather, the power to investigate and quarantine people with 
communicable or infectious diseases is given to health authorities, not the 
Governor. 
73. 
Without declaratory and injunctive relief, the Church’s religious 
exercise will continue to be chilled and the Church will continue to suffer violations 
of its constitutional rights and irreparable harm. 
COUNT I 
Violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution  
(Free Exercise) 
74. 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 73. 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 15 of 20

 
15 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
75. 
Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs teach that the Bible is the 
inspired word of God and the sole authority for faith and practice. 
76. 
Plaintiff sincerely believes that the Bible teaches the necessity of 
gathering together for corporate prayer, worship, and fellowship and that such 
assembly is necessary and good for the Church and its members’ spiritual growth. 
77. 
The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban substantially burdens 
Plaintiff’s religion by prohibiting it from holding in-person church services with 
more than 50 persons. 
78. 
The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban interferes with Plaintiff’s 
religious autonomy and ability to carry out its religious doctrine, faith, and mission. 
79. 
The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban targets, discriminates against, 
and shows hostility towards churches, including Plaintiff. 
80. 
The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban is neither neutral nor generally 
applicable because it is riddled with exceptions and is based on a system of 
individualized assessments. 
81. 
Defendants do not have a compelling reason for prohibiting Plaintiff’s 
in-person church services when attendees can practice adequate social distancing, 
especially when compared to the numerous secular activities exempted under the 
Governor’s orders. 
82. 
Defendants have not selected the least restrictive means to further any 
purported interest. 
83. 
The Church Gathering Ban violates the Free Exercise Clause of the 
First Amendment to the United States Constitution, both facially and as applied. 
84. 
Without declaratory and injunctive relief, Plaintiff will be irreparably 
harmed. 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 16 of 20

 
16 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COUNT II 
Violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 
(Right to Assemble) 
85. 
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 73. 
86. 
The First Amendment prohibits Defendants from violating Plaintiff’s 
right to peaceably assemble. 
87. 
The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban violates Plaintiff’s right to 
peaceably assemble because the ban on in-person services does not serve any 
legitimate, rational, substantial, or compelling governmental interest, especially 
when viewed in light of the numerous secular activities exempted under the 
Governor’s orders. 
88. 
Defendants have alternative, less restrictive means to achieve any 
interest that it might have. 
89. 
The Church Gathering Ban violates the right to assemble under the 
First Amendment to the United States Constitution, both facially and as applied. 
90. 
Without declaratory and injunctive relief, Plaintiff will be irreparably 
harmed. 
COUNT III 
Violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 
(Free Speech) 
91. 
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 73.  
92. 
The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban violates Plaintiff’s freedom of 
speech by prohibiting it from engaging in religious speech through its church 
services, which occur exclusively on private property. 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 17 of 20

 
17 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
93. 
The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban specifically targets meetings of 
more than 50 people for the purpose of religious expression, while permitting 
meetings of the same or greater size for secular purposes. 
94. 
The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban is thus is content- and 
viewpoint-based in violation of the First Amendment. 
95. 
The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban gives government officials 
unbridled discretion with respect to enforcement of the order and the imposition of 
any penalty, making the order susceptible to both content- and viewpoint-based 
discrimination. 
96. 
Prohibiting or punishing Plaintiff’s religious speech does not serve any 
legitimate, rational, substantial, or compelling governmental interest. 
97. 
The State also has alternative, less restrictive means to achieve any 
interest that it might have. 
98. 
The Church Gathering Ban violates the Free Speech Clause of the 
First Amendment to the United States Constitution, both facially and as applied. 
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 
  
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: 
a. 
Enter a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and 
permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from enforcing those portions of the 
Governor’s orders that limit in-person church services to 50 or fewer persons, 
thereby allowing Plaintiff and its congregants to resume corporate prayer and 
worship while following adequate social distancing and public health guidelines. 
b. 
Enter a judgment declaring that those portions of the Governor’s 
orders that limit in-person church services to 50 or fewer persons violate the U.S. 
Constitution’s Free Exercise and Right to Assemble Clauses, both facially and as-
applied; 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 18 of 20

 
18 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
c. 
Award Plaintiff court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and 
d. 
Award such other and further relief as to which Plaintiff may be 
entitled. 
 Respectfully submitted this 28th day of May 2020. 
 
Kristen K. Waggoner (AZ Bar 032382)* 
Ryan J. Tucker (AZ Bar 034382)* 
Jeremiah Galus (AZ Bar 030469)* 
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 
15100 N. 90th Street 
Scottsdale, AZ  85260 
Telephone: (480) 444-0020 
kwaggoner@adflegal.org 
rtucker@adflegal.org 
jgalus@adflegal.org 
 
David A. Cortman (GA Bar 188810)* 
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 
1000 Hurricane Shoals Rd. NE 
Ste. D-1100 
Lawrenceville, GA 30043 
Telephone: (770) 339-0774 
dcortman@ADFlegal.org 
 
*Pro hac vice application forthcoming 
 
s/ Jason D. Guinasso 
 
 
Jason D. Guinasso (SBN# 8478) 
500 Damonte Ranch Pkwy, Suite 980 
Reno, NV 89521 
Telephone: (775) 853-8746 
jguinasso@hutchlegal.com 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 19 of 20

Case 3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB   Document 8   Filed 05/28/20   Page 20 of 20

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nvd.143509.8.0_1.pdf

Size

525,480 bytes

SHA-256

11320fc0d2bb5a5cc28e01205f84cf3ddfa8d13f2e9e2b7d76db9170c5b1a124

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nvd.143509.8.0_1.pdf

Original

archive.org