OKLAHOMA CITY – The City of Guthrie, its mayor, city council and other key officials have been sued by 10 city residents on grounds that municipal measures imposed in response to the coronavirus pandemic violate their constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Commerce Clause.
The case has potential ramifications for cities and towns throughout Oklahoma.
The lawsuit arises from a “State of Emergency Declaration” that Guthrie Mayor Steven J. Gentling issued on March 16, effective through May 11 “unless terminated or renewed”, and from Ordinance #3330 adopted by the City Council on April 6, effective through May 5.
The ordinance requires Guthrie citizens to “shelter in place” and to wear “cloth face coverings”; closed city properties and facilities; suspended organized gatherings of 10 or more people on public or private property; closed hair and nail salons, barber shops, spas, tattoo parlors, and other businesses except those deemed to be “essential”; etc.
Any violation of “any stipulation or provisions” of the ordinance can result in a fine of $100 to $500 plus costs and fees, their attorney Frank Urbanic of Oklahoma City, noted. Bond for any offense is $200 plus all costs and fees, Urbanic pointed out.
The plaintiffs have requested a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for 11 a.m. April 27 before U.S. District Judge Scott Palk in Oklahoma City’s U.S. Western District federal court.
The plaintiffs include Angela F. Miller, Donna J. Wilson, Jackie A. Whitley, Daniel L. Navejas, Heather E. Brown, James P. Nunamaker, Bobby J. Lockhart, Audra M. Lockhart, Vicki L. Jones and Tammie D. Hulsey.
Besides the mayor and city council, others named in the lawsuit are Police Chief Don Sweger, and city prosecutors William W. Wheeler and Sheri L. Mueller.
Free Exercise of Religion Impeded by Ordinance
The plaintiffs cite the “free exercise clause” of the First Amendment. “Fundamental to this protection is the right to gather and worship,” they contend. The ordinance “does not deem any sort of spiritual or religious activity to be an ‘essential activity,’ the plaintiffs argue. In fact, the ordinance “specifically identifies ‘spiritual gatherings’ as the type that are prohibited when ten or more people are present.”
Furthermore, the ordinance “does not list any form of church or place of religious worship to be among the exceptions,” the plaintiffs continue. “This is regardless of any mitigation measures (such as staying in one’s car or keeping a CDC-recommended distance of 6 feet away from people).
The ordinance also violates the plaintiffs’ “right of the people peaceably to assemble” under the First Amendment.
The “social distancing guidelines” of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “are appropriate to limit the spread of COVID-19,” the plaintiffs concede. “Imposing more restrictive requirements that target churches is not the least-restrictive means of achieving” the city’s public safety goal.
Ordinance Violates Commerce Clause
Guthrie’s ordinance also violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) in two ways, the plaintiffs allege.
The ordinance mandates the closure of many businesses, which “surely … affects interstate commerce.” The City of Guthrie’s prohibition on commerce is “in opposition to Congress’s current regulation of interstate commerce and is an unlawful usurpation of Congress’s regulatory power under the Commerce Clause.”
The ordinance also mandates “cloth face coverings”. The edict “applies to the richest and the poorest alike” in town. However, “there is no guarantee that everyone within its city limits has a mask that meets the approval of the City of Guthrie.” That section of the ordinance “forces plaintiffs into commerce,” they allege. A municipality “should… be prohibited from forcing an individual to engage in commerce when all that person wants to do is leave his or her house.”
They also note that no Oklahoma statute, court ruling or executive order mandates “the wearing of any sort of face mask or covering,” so Guthrie’s mandate to wear a face covering is “clearly inconsistent” with state statutes.
Ordinance ‘Imprecise, ‘Vague, Ambiguous’
Guthrie’s ordinance is unconstitutional because “its language is imprecise, ambiguous, and vague – which will inevitably result in selective and arbitrary enforcement,” the plaintiffs assert. This violates the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, they maintain.
The ordinance “unnecessarily infringes upon fundamental constitutional rights without being narrowly tailored to address the harm it seeks to prevent,” the plaintiffs insist. “Its language is overbroad, overreaching of the State’s police powers, unconstitutional, and void on its face.”
They ask the court to declare that their fundamental constitutional rights have been violated, to bar enforcement of the ordinance, and to award them “reasonable” attorney fees, costs and expenses.
Kansas Judge Ruled In a Similar Case
A federal judge in Kansas indicated he thinks that state is violating religious freedom and free speech rights with a coronavirus-inspired 10-person limit on in-person attendance at religious services or activities; the jurist blocked its enforcement against two churches that sued over it.
The ruling April 18 from U.S. District Judge John Broomes in Wichita prevents the enforcement of an order issued by Gov. Laura Kelly against a church in Dodge City and one in Junction City. The judge’s decision will remain in effect until May 2.