The Justice Department warned Norman, Oklahoma, Mayor Breea Clark on Friday that her order shuttering churches may be unconstitutional, in the latest effort by the feds to police state and local shutdown policies amid coronavirus.
Timothy J. Downing, the U.S. attorney for the western district of Oklahoma, said Ms. Clark has allowed restaurants, retail stores and salons to open — and churches and other religious facilities must be granted at least those same rights.
“Religious institutions must not be singled out for special burdens,” he wrote in a warning letter.
Ms. Clark, in a proclamation last week, laid out phases of reopening. Restaurants, retail stores, gyms, sports playing fields and pet grooming operations were all allowed to open. But the mayor said churches and other houses of worship must remain closed until May 15.
Mr. Downing said places of worship should open this weekend, in time for Mother’s Day.
“Even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers,” he wrote. “Government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity.”
His letter marks an elevation of what had been a brewing state feud.
On Wednesday, Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter took to Twitter to urge Ms. Clark to rethink her proclamation closing houses of worship.
The mayor fired back, questioning why Mr. Hunter had gone to Twitter rather than call her.
“This is how you reach out to me about your concern?” she wrote, also on Twitter.
Ms. Clark also said the reverend at her church supported her decision.
In a statement, posted online by local media, the city rebuffed Mr. Hunter’s complaints.
“The city understands the importance of its citizen’s[sic.] rights to exercise their religious and non-religious beliefs freely and to assemble peaceably. However, constitutional rights have never been absolute,” the city said. “Rather, they are subject to a balancing test with state interest.”
The city cited a 1944 Supreme Court ruling that held the right to practice religion “does not include liberty to expose the community … to a communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.”
That case dealt with a parent’s right to cite religion as a reason to avoid compulsory vaccination.
• Stephen Dinan can be reached at sdinan@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.