The Calvary Chapel lawsuit is now sitting at the U.S. Supreme Court. After losing at every level of the California courts, Calvary Chapel San Jose and its senior pastor, Mike McClure, petitioned the Justices in December 2025 to throw out $1.2 million in fines Santa Clara County imposed for holding indoor worship services during the COVID-19 pandemic. As of mid-2026, the Court has not said whether it will hear the case.
Where the Case Stands at the Supreme Court
The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on December 12, 2025, after Justice Kagan granted a filing extension. It is docketed as No. 25-703, with the church and Pastor McClure represented by the American Center for Law and Justice and Advocates for Faith and Freedom.1U.S. Supreme Court. No. 25-703 Docket
The Justices distributed the petition for conference on April 24, 2026. The docket has not shown a grant, a denial, or a relist for a later conference since then.1U.S. Supreme Court. No. 25-703 Docket
What the Church Is Asking the Justices to Decide
The petition raises four questions.2SCOTUSgate. Calvary Chapel San Jose v. California
- Whether COVID restrictions containing multiple secular exceptions should trigger strict scrutiny under Employment Division v. Smith because they are not truly generally applicable.
- Whether the church autonomy doctrine should include a “liturgical exception” protecting internal worship practices from government regulation.
- Whether the Court should overrule Smith entirely if it allows governments to micromanage religious services.
- Whether imposing more than $1.2 million in fines on a church for adhering to its religious requirements violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.
The third question is the one most likely to draw attention. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch have called explicitly for Smith to be overruled, while Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh have expressed dissatisfaction with the precedent but cautioned against discarding it without a clear replacement. The Court has so far preferred to narrow Smith through the “most-favored-nation” approach from cases like Tandon v. Newsom rather than confronting it directly.3SCOTUSblog. The Nine Lives of Employment Division v. Smith
Who Is Backing the Church
Amicus briefs filed in January 2026 give some sense of the interest the petition has drawn.
A coalition of 20 state attorneys general, led by West Virginia Attorney General John B. McCuskey, urged the Court to take the case, arguing that constitutional protections do not diminish during emergencies and criticizing the Smith general-applicability framework as unworkable.4U.S. Supreme Court. Brief of West Virginia et al. as Amici Curiae
The Alliance Defending Freedom argued that the county’s enforcement actions reflected “contemporaneous hostility” toward religious actors and that sanctions motivated by anti-religious animus must be set aside even under Smith, citing Masterpiece Cakeshop.5Advocates for Faith & Freedom. Alliance Defending Freedom Amicus Brief
The Liberty Justice Center argued that the fines were “grossly disproportionate,” noting they rivaled or exceeded the maximum daily penalties the county imposes for storing toxic gases or hazardous materials, and that allowing such penalties would “invite government to evade meaningful judicial review through financial ruin.”6Liberty Justice Center. Calvary Chapel San Jose v. California
Additional briefs came from the Pacific Justice Institute, the National Religious Broadcasters, Advancing American Freedom, and the Robertson Center for Constitutional Law.1U.S. Supreme Court. No. 25-703 Docket
How the Fines Got This High
Calvary Chapel kept holding indoor services in defiance of Santa Clara County’s health orders beginning in March 2020. Pastor McClure described the church as a “place of refuge” and said he had an “obligation before God” to continue in-person ministry.7Calvary Chapel Magazine. CC San Jose Petitions US Supreme Court Attendees were invited to distance or wear masks, but neither was required.
The county went after the church on two separate tracks. On the injunction and contempt track, the church eventually won: in August 2022, the California Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled the underlying restraining orders and preliminary injunction “facially unconstitutional” under Tandon v. Newsom and annulled more than $200,000 in contempt sanctions against the church and its pastors.8FindLaw. People v. Calvary Chapel San Jose
The administrative-fine track is what remains. On April 7, 2023, Superior Court Judge Evette D. Pennypacker entered a final judgment of $1,228,700 against the church. The county had originally sought roughly $2.8 million; the court narrowed the penalty to violations tied to a single November 9, 2020 notice concerning the face-covering requirement, covering about 225 days of noncompliance at roughly $5,460 per day.6Liberty Justice Center. Calvary Chapel San Jose v. California
On April 15, 2025, the Sixth District affirmed that judgment in an unpublished opinion (Case No. H051860). The appellate court held the mask requirement was neutral and generally applicable under Employment Division v. Smith, and it found the fines were not grossly disproportionate given that the church “intentionally and repeatedly failed to comply” during a severe pandemic.9U.S. Supreme Court. Calvary Chapel San Jose Petition for Writ of Certiorari The court denied rehearing on May 6, 2025, and the California Supreme Court declined to review the case on July 16, 2025.10Horvitz & Levy. Supreme Court Leaves Standing Million-Dollar Pandemic Health Violation Fine Against Church
The Separate Geofencing Lawsuit
The fine dispute is not the only case pending. In August 2023, Calvary Chapel and Pastor McClure filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of California, alleging that Santa Clara County conducted warrantless cell-phone location surveillance of the congregation. The case, No. 5:23-cv-04277, names the county and data company SafeGraph as defendants.11Bloomberg Law. Church Sues California County Over Alleged Covid-19 Geofencing
According to the complaint, the county obtained location data from SafeGraph through a Stanford University research team led by Professor Daniel Ho. The data tracked foot traffic at the church from January 2020 through February 2021, and the church says the county placed two virtual geofences around the property covering the parking lots, sanctuary, school, and ministry housing.12Reclaim the Net. Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Santa Clara County Complaint SafeGraph’s senior vice president of operations said the Stanford researchers had violated the company’s terms of service and non-commercial research agreement by providing the data to the county.13RealClearInvestigations. Just the Facts on Geofencing The lawsuit asserts claims under the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, and First Amendment retaliation.
What the Church Still Owes if It Loses
Beyond the $1,228,700 in fines, Santa Clara County is seeking $1,098,244 in attorney fees and $45,753 in costs from the church and Pastor McClure.14Christian News Wire. California Fines Church $1.2 Million for Worship On September 15, 2025, the Superior Court vacated the fee hearing and stayed the request pending the outcome of the certiorari petition.9U.S. Supreme Court. Calvary Chapel San Jose Petition for Writ of Certiorari Total exposure if the county prevails on both would exceed $2.3 million.