Hawse v. Page, No. 20-1960 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a complaint challenging a COVID-19 public health order entered by St. Louis County in April 2020 which included provisions limiting the size of gatherings in churches. Plaintiffs allege that the order violated their rights to free exercise of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly under federal and state law. The district court concluded that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing on these claims because they did not adequately allege that an order of the court would redress their injuries.
The court concluded that the district court properly construed the complaint and correctly dismissed it for lack of an Article III case or controversy. The court explained that the district court properly limited its analysis to whether plaintiffs alleged a redressable injury arising from their inability to participate in religious activities with ten or more persons at their respective churches. The court agreed with the district court that the complaint does not adequately allege that an injunction against enforcement of the April 2020 Public Health Order would have redressed plaintiffs' injuries. The court stated that, without a sufficient factual allegation that plaintiffs' churches would allow ten or more persons to gather if the Order were enjoined, the complaint did not adequately allege Article III standing.
The court also concluded that, even if plaintiffs had adequately alleged Article III standing in May 2020, any controversy over the Public Health Order of April 20, 2020, is now moot. In this case, given the developments since May 2020, there is no reasonable expectation that the County will reinstate its Order of April 2020 and limit religious gatherings to fewer than ten persons. Furthermore, there have also been developments in the law.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Kelly and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - COVID-19. Plaintiffs challenge a public health order entered in April, 2020, in St. Louis County which included provisions limiting the size of gatherings in churches, alleging the order violated their right to free exercise of religion and freedom of expression, association and assembly, as well as the Missouri Constitution and Missouri Religious Freedom Restoration Act; the district court dismissed the suit, concluding the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing on these claims because they did not adequately alleged that an order of the court would redress their injuries. Held: the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient factual content that would support a reasonable inference that they sought to engage in religious activities with a group of ten or more people outside a church; as a result, plaintiff failed to allege a redressable injury arising from their inability to participate in religious activities with ten or more person at their respective churches, and the district court did not err in concluding the complaint did not adequately allege that an injunction against the County's order would have redressed their injuries; alternatively, even if plaintiffs had adequately alleged Article III standing in May, 2020, any controversy over the April, 2020 order is moot in light of changed public health conditions and developments in the law governing pandemic restrictions on religious gatherings. Judge Stras, dissenting.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.