California is still trying to collect $1.2 million in fines from Calvary Chapel San Jose.
On the ACLJ’s program “Sekulow,” host Logan Sekulow opened the segment by calling it one of the bigger cases the organization has taken in years. He said the ACLJ is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the church.
Co-host Will Haynes framed the stakes bluntly. In late 2025, the state is “still trying to get $1.2 million” from a congregation over COVID protocol violations dating back to 2020.
The message from the ACLJ team is simple. They believe the fines punish religious exercise and violate the First Amendment.
The Petition: Taking It to the High Court
Jay Sekulow, ACLJ’s Chief Counsel, joined by phone and confirmed they are filing a petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court.
He emphasized a key point about the restrictions used to justify the penalties. He said courts – including the Supreme Court – had already declared most of those restrictions unconstitutional.
Jay described the specific rule Calvary Chapel faced. A hard cap of 50 people per service regardless of a sanctuary’s size – whether 500, 5,000, or 10,000 square feet.
In his view, it made “absolutely no sense,” especially while casinos and retail stores received exemptions.
The $1.2 Million Question
Haynes pressed the number again and again: $1.2 million. He called it “egregious,” arguing the state is effectively reaching into congregants’ tithes.
He noted the irony. Governor Gavin Newsom attended the French Laundry during COVID, yet California still seeks to collect from a church nearly six years later.
Logan echoed the outrage. He said the state is “trying to take the tithes away from this church,” money intended for ministry, outreach, and local needs.
Whether you agree with their framing or not, the optics are powerful. A state battling a church for donations that members intended for worship and service programs invites a First Amendment fight.
What the Courts Already Said
Jay’s argument rests on what he says courts have already decided.
He explained that many of the restrictions applied to worship services were found unconstitutional, and the ones applied to Calvary Chapel fell into that category. Yet the state kept pursuing penalties anyway.
This is the crux of the ACLJ’s pitch to the justices. If the underlying orders were unconstitutional, how can the state still collect fines tied to those orders?
It’s a compelling legal question: Can a government retroactively enforce penalties for violating a rule that courts later said the government had no right to impose in the first place?
Free Exercise vs. Public Health – Revisited
We’ve been here before. The early pandemic years forced a balancing test between public health and religious liberty.
Jay argued California tipped the scales against churches while privileging secular activities. He pointed to exemptions for retailers and casinos, contrasting that with blanket caps on worship regardless of building size.
Haynes added that if California had acknowledged the court rulings, rescinded the penalties, and moved on, this might not have reached the Supreme Court. Instead, he said, the state “fought it at every level,” forcing the case up the ladder.
From a constitutional perspective, the debate is about neutrality and general applicability. If secular venues received favorable treatment while churches faced stricter rules, the state has a problem under the Free Exercise Clause.
“Give to Caesar … and to God”
Haynes drew on a familiar line: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
His claim is that California wants both. Taxes and tithes.
It’s strong rhetoric, aimed at underscoring the First Amendment stakes. The fines would be paid from money expressly given for religious purposes, not general revenues. That distinction matters theologically – and, the ACLJ argues, legally.
Even if you set the theology aside, there’s a practical concern here. If the government can claw back tithes years later over policies courts rejected, what stops future retroactive penalties when political winds shift?
The Disparate-Impact Problem
Jay called the treatment “disproportionate.” He contends California singled out churches with rules that didn’t scale to risk, space, or context.
He returned to that 50-person cap. If the state can’t justify applying the same limit to vastly different buildings, the order looks arbitrary.
The ACLJ position is that the Constitution requires more. Neutral, evenly applied rules. No favoritism for secular activities. And certainly no after-the-fact fines once courts have weighed in.
Politics, Profiles, and the Long Game
Haynes noted the timing. Governor Newsom is raising his national profile. He suggested the continued push to collect from Calvary Chapel undercuts the “no kings” narrative Newsom has promoted.
Jay took it further. If governments can still collect fines based on orders found unconstitutional, he asked, what won’t they try to do next? He warned about what that mindset could mean for future governance and judicial appointments.
Critics will say this is political theater. Supporters will say it’s a necessary warning. Either way, the argument is aimed squarely at the Court’s institutional role as a constitutional backstop.
The Two Questions That Matter
Set the rhetoric aside and two legal questions stand out.
First, retroactivity. If a rule is later deemed unconstitutional, can the state continue to enforce penalties assessed under that rule? Courts generally frown on punishing conduct under invalid laws. California will argue the church knowingly violated orders in place at the time. The church will argue those orders never had lawful force against worship, so the fines can’t stand.
Second, neutrality. Were comparable secular activities treated more favorably than worship? If yes, strict scrutiny applies, and the state must show a compelling interest pursued in the least restrictive way. In 2020, some courts were more deferential to public health goals. As time passed, many judges questioned sweeping, non-tailored rules for religious services.
On both fronts, the Church has colorable claims. The state will defend its emergency authority. The Court will be weighing not just history, but precedent forged under crisis.
What the ACLJ Wants – and Why It Resonates
Jay said the ACLJ is asking the Supreme Court to take the case and stop the collection effort. He acknowledged getting cert is always an uphill climb but said the facts are “very, very strong.”
He also made a practical plea to supporters. Pray for the legal team, support the ACLJ financially, and stay engaged as the case moves.
Logan and Haynes mirrored that call to action. They tied the case to broader principles of free speech, free assembly, and freedom from government interference in church affairs.
Even if you roll your eyes at fundraising appeals, the underlying issue resonates beyond one church. If the Court takes the case, the decision could shape how states handle penalties tied to emergency orders that don’t survive constitutional scrutiny.
Why This Case Could Matter Nationally
A Supreme Court ruling would echo far beyond California.
States will face future emergencies. They will impose urgent rules. Some will inevitably overshoot. The question is what happens after courts rein those rules in.
If fines stand anyway, governments get a powerful deterrent – retroactive punishment – even when their orders were unlawful. If fines fall, states get a clear message: tailor restrictions carefully, treat worship neutrally, and don’t expect to collect when you don’t meet constitutional standards.
That kind of clarity would be healthy. For churches. For agencies. For courts. For everyone who might be on the receiving end of blanket orders in the next crisis.
For now, the ACLJ is preparing its petition. Logan and Haynes say their team is “very active” and view this as a defining First Amendment case.
Jay closed with a warning and a hope. The warning is about government power when unchecked by courts. The hope is that the Supreme Court takes the case and draws a constitutional line that protects religious liberty – and the tithes that fund it.
Agree or disagree with the ACLJ, this is a fight worth watching. It’s not just about a church’s checkbook. It’s about what the First Amendment still means when fear and urgency collide with faith and freedom.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, John developed a love for the great outdoors early on. With years of experience as a wilderness guide, he’s navigated rugged terrains and unpredictable weather patterns. John is also an avid hunter and fisherman who believes in sustainable living. His focus on practical survival skills, from building shelters to purifying water, reflects his passion for preparedness. When he’s not out in the wild, you can find him sharing his knowledge through writing, hoping to inspire others to embrace self-reliance.
