Petitions for preliminary injunctions against Governor Lolo Moliga and the American Samoa Government over COVID-19 emergency declaration restrictions have been denied by the Trial Division of the High court.
The plaintiffs, Bryan Jackson and Steven Jay Pincus Hueter alleged in separate filings that their constitutional, civil and liberty rights were violated by the emergency declaration restrictions relating to public gatherings including church services. They alleged the restrictions took away their freedom of religion and assembly.
In a 15-page ruling issued Friday, the court said, “We are not persuaded that either plaintiff has demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits, no that great or irreparable harm will result absent the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs’ respective applications for preliminary injunction are denied.”
Chief Justice Michael Kruse, Associate Judges Faamausili Pomele and Muasau Tofili said their denial of the plaintiffs’ applications “is informed by the Supreme Court’s recent rejection of interlocutory relief sought against California Governor Newsom’s COVID-19 related executive order, aimed at limiting the spread of COVID-19.”
They cited Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling in concurrence in the South Bay United Pentecostal Church vs Governor Newsom: “The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement. Our constitution principally entrusts the safety and the health of the people to the politically accountable officials of the States to guard and protect. When those officials undertake to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties, their latitude must be especially broad. Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second guessing by an unelected judiciary, which lacks the background, competence and expertise to asses public health and is not accountable to the people.”
In the local case, the judges said the protections afforded by the First Amendment are “not absolute and we have long recognized that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the constitution.”
“A law burdening religious practice that is not neutral or not of general application must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny. To satisfy the commands of the First Amendment a law restrictive of religious practice must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests.”
The judges went on to say that while the emergency declaration restrictions on public gatherings appear to curtail plaintiffs individual freedom to be physically present at a religious service or public gatherings, “protecting a living community from preventable death is undoubtedly, a compelling government interest.”
According to the ruling, “Given that such measures have in no way prevented religious organizations from broadcasting their services to followers via the internet and over television, such measure are narrowly tailored. Any infringement of plaintiffs’ freedom pales when compared to the threat COVID-19 poses to the territory’s residents.”
The judges present a historical context in their ruling with the different responses to the 1918 Spanish Influenza by Samoa and American Samoa with the US naval administration in American Samoa banning boats, mail and everything coming into the territory. Samoa on the other hand didn’t take any measures and while there were no deaths in the territory 22% of Samoa’s population was wiped out by the flu.
Said the judges,”When compared to the emergency measures implemented by the naval government in 1918, ASG’s emergency declarations are relatively less demanding but so far proving just as effective in terms of keeping the territory free of any COVID-19 related fatalities. Weighing therefore the community’s interest in preserving its health and well being against the individual freedoms of two individuals, the equities are glaringly against plaintiffs.”
