IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION
THE BELOVED CHURCH, an Illinois Not-forProfit Corporation, and PASTOR STEPHEN
CASSELL, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JAY ROBERT PRITZKER, Governor of the
State of Illinois, DAVID SNYDERS, Sheriff of
Stephenson County, Illinois, STEVE
SCHAIBLE, Chief of Police of the Village of
Lena, Illinois, and CRAIG BEINTEMA,
Administrator of the Department of Public
Health of Stephenson County, Illinois, in their
official capacities,
Defendants.

)
) No.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, The Beloved Church of Lena, Illinois, and Pastor Stephen Cassell, by and
through their counsel, the Thomas More Society, complain of Defendants Jay Robert Pritzker,
David Snyders, Steve Schaible, and Craig Beintema, as follows:
I.

Introduction
1.

Fear of the coronavirus epidemic has gripped Illinois, the nation, and the world. In

response to the initial surge in coronavirus cases, numerous states imposed “stay-at-home”
orders, in order to “flatten the curve” of the spread of the virus. Due to the unified efforts of the
American people, the curve has flattened nationally, and in Illinois.

1

 2.

In many states, these stay-at-home orders protected the constitutional rights of

churches and religious believers during the coronavirus epidemic, but not so in the Land of
Lincoln.
3.

Defendant Pritzker in his orders declared churches and church ministries “non-

essential” and commanded them to shut down.1 Pritzker has forbidden congregants from leaving
their homes to attend church or church ministries. On the eve of Easter, the holiest day on the
Christian calendar, Pritzker expressly prohibited even no-contact, drive-in services in Illinois
church parking lots. At the same time, he declared a laundry list of businesses to be “essential,”
from liquor stores to lawyers to landscapers.
4.

Pritzker’s statements and actions during the coronavirus epidemic demonstrate an

illegal and discriminatory hostility to religious practice, churches, and people of faith. He has
flagrantly violated the fundamental religious liberties of Illinoisans, in violation of the First
Amendment’s Free Exercise clause and parallel provisions of the Illinois Constitution and
statute.
5.

In recent days, a number of law enforcement officials (e.g., Douglas County

Sheriff Joshua Blackwell, Energy Police Chief Shawn Ladd, Woodford County State's Attorney
Greg Minger, Tazewell County Sheriff Jeff Lower) have publicly announced they will refuse to
enforce Pritzker’s orders, some going so far as to state they are unconstitutional, such that
enforcement would be a violation of their oath of office.2

1

Defendant Pritzker’s stay-at-home orders divide businesses into “essential” and “nonessential,” with essential businesses allowed to operate with minimal alterations while nonessential businesses are closed to the public.
2
And even Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, a former federal prosecutor, recently stated that her
police force would not enforce Pritzker’s impending mask requirement. See,
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/what-to-know-about-the-new-mask-requirement-whendo-you-need-one-how-will-it-be-enforced/2261209/ (“Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said she
2

 6.

At least one of these law enforcers cited as support a widely circulated and

reported memo recently sent by the Chief Deputy Director of the Illinois Appellate Prosecutor’s
Office to the Director, for use in that Office’s role as advisor to Illinois State’s Attorneys, casting
substantial doubt on the constitutionality of numerous provisions of Pritzker’s executive orders.
The Chief Deputy Director’s memo specifically references the restrictions on religious activity
therein, noting that “the EO is very broad and does not appear to meet strict scrutiny -- this is not
to mention the EO appears to be beyond the framework of the specific Act it cites as support.”
See, https://www.policeone.com/coronavirus-covid-19/articles/ill-chief-police-hold-no-interestin-enforcing-stay-at-home-order-DNteArzdzYDmvGh2/ (citing Memo found at
https://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/COVID-19-Memo-4.21.20003.pdf).
7.

On Tuesday, April 27, an Illinois Circuit Court agreed with this assessment and

issued a temporary restraining order to a local state legislator against the current executive order.
See, Bailey v. Pritzker, Clay Co. No. 20-CH-6. On Wednesday, April 28, another lawsuit was
filed by a state legislator in Winnebago County Circuit Court, alleging Pritzker’s orders
exceeded his statutory and constitutional power. See, Cabello v. Pritzker, Winnebago Co. No.
2020-CH-210.
8.

Despite the deep statewide concerns about the shaky legal foundations of his

orders, Pritzker has not yielded to those concerns, but instead doubled down, announcing he will
extend his orders to the end of May and beyond. Throughout, the Illinois State Police has
threatened criminal enforcement of the orders statewide, even when local law enforcement
decides not to do so. See, e.g., https://newschannel20.com/news/local/isp-clarifies-enforcement-

opposed making masks a requirement . . . . she doesn't plan on arresting or citing people who
don't wear a mask . . . .”)
3

 of-stay-at-home-order (“‘While the goal is voluntary compliance, citizens should be aware that
non-compliance with the Executive Order can result in criminal and civil sanctions,’ said an
Illinois State Police spokesperson.”) & https://www.wglt.org/post/pekin-country-club-golfcourse-closes-after-state-police-intervene#stream/0 (“Illinois State Police delivered a cease-anddesist letter to the private venue to force compliance with Gov. J.B. Pritzker's stay-at-home
executive order. . . . Tazewell County Sheriff's Office had expressed ‘no issue’ with continued
golfing at the Pekin Country Club”).
9.

It has also been publicly reported that prominent government officials have

violated Pritzker’s orders, without consequence. Mayor Lightfoot famously violated the orders
and got a haircut, despite the hair stylists and barbers of the state being shut down, with no
income and still being unable to access unemployment benefits nearly 6 weeks into the
mandatory shutdown.3
10.

Plaintiffs believe that, in these dark times, Illinoisans need the Spirit of Almighty

God, but Pritzker’s orders have left them to settle for the lesser spirits dispensed out of the state’s
liquor stores. The churches and pastors of Illinois are no less “essential” than its liquor stores to
the health and well-being of its residents. Defendants have thus intentionally denigrated Illinois
churches and pastors and people of faith by relegating them to second-class citizenship.
Defendants have no compelling justification for their discriminatory treatment of churches and

3

The First Lady of Illinois has also been reported to be in residence at Pritzker’s vacation home
in Florida, which would be a violation of Pritzker’s travel orders, if she did not leave before their
effective date almost a month and a half ago. See, https://ilrisingaction.org/first-lady-mkpritzker-violates-stay-at-home-order-by-traveling-to-familys-florida-compound/ (citing
https://patch.com/illinois/chicago/does-all-illinois-slogan-apply-billionaire-govs-family).
Pritzker refused to answer questions related to the issue at his April 29 press conference. See,
https://twitter.com/MarkMaxwellTV/status/1255590975826808833.
4

 pastors and people of faith, nor have they attempted in any way to tailor their regulations to the
least restrictive means necessary to meet any arguable compelling interest.
11.

Plaintiffs intend to reopen and hold public worship services this Sunday, May 3.

They justifiably fear arrest and prosecution if they do so, without immediate relief from this
Court.
12.

Plaintiffs seek temporary and permanent injunctive relief against Pritzker’s orders

shuttering their church, church ministries, and pastoral activities, as illegal and unconstitutional
on their face and as applied to Plaintiffs.
II.

Parties
13.

The Beloved Church (“the Church”) is an evangelical Christian church, organized

as an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, located in the Village of Lena, Stephenson County,
Illinois. Its principal asset is a church building located in the Village of Lena. The Church sues in
its own capacity and on behalf of its congregants.
14.

Plaintiff, Stephen Cassell, is pastor of the Church and a resident of Pearl City,

Stephenson County, Illinois.
15.

Defendant, Jay Robert Pritzker, is the governor of the state of Illinois.

16.

Defendant, David Snyders, is the Sheriff of Stephenson County, Illinois, and has

been serving in that office at all times relevant to this Complaint.
17.

Defendant, Steve Schaible, is the Police Chief of the Village of Lena, in

Stephenson County, Illinois, and has been serving in that office at all times relevant to this
Complaint.
18.

Defendant, Craig Beintema, is the Public Health Administrator of Stephenson

County, Illinois, and has been serving in that office at all times relevant to this Complaint.
III.

Venue
5

 19.

Plaintiffs and the local Defendants (Snyders, Schaible, and Beintema) are resident

in the Northern District, Western Division. Many of the acts and omissions, and the effects of the
acts and omissions, giving rise to this case occurred in Stephenson County, which is in the
Northern District, Western Division. Venue is thus proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §
1391.
IV.

Jurisdiction
20.

This court has jurisdiction over the federal claims asserted here under the federal

question provision of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
21.

This court has jurisdiction over the claims asserting violations of the Illinois

Constitution and Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 775 ILCS 35/1, et seq., under the
supplemental jurisdiction provision of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
22.

As alleged more fully below, all of Defendants’ actions that have deprived

Plaintiffs of rights under the U.S. Constitution have been taken under color of law.
23.

This Court has the authority to grant the requested injunctive relief under 28

U.S.C. § 1343(3), declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, the claim for damages
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and to grant costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
V.

Facts
A.

Plaintiffs Sincerely Believe, Teach, and Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ

24.

Pastor Cassell founded the Church on the truths of God's unconditional Love,

amazing Grace and majestic Restoration available through the completed work of Jesus Christ.
Plaintiffs hold firm to these life-changing foundations as they joyfully undertake their mission to
the community.

6

 25.

Among other beliefs, Plaintiffs believe that the entire bible, Old and New

Testaments, are a completed and infallible work called the Word of God. This work contains a
completed revelation of God for mankind and the final authority for all Christian faith and
practice. See, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Psalms 19:7-11.
26.

Plaintiffs are passionate to share the love of God with their congregants, who

form what they believe is their Church family. Plaintiffs believe that through connecting with
those in need, they can assist them in building a Godly and rock-solid foundation that cannot be
shaken under any circumstance. To that end, Plaintiffs bring their understanding and personal
experience with the issues and problems facing us all in today's world, including the coronavirus
epidemic. Pastor Cassell lives, works, and ministers among and alongside his Church family.
Plaintiffs are dedicated to being available to congregants and community members for counsel
and assistance in any area of their lives. Plaintiffs believe there is no problem or situation too big
or small for their gracious Savior to overcome.
27.

From the time that he first founded the Church, Pastor Cassell has presided over

Sunday religious services at the Church, as well as other religious services, to which all members
of the Church are invited and strongly encouraged to attend. Those services have been held for
the last five years in the Church’s building in Lena, Illinois. Approximately 80 people attend
Sunday services at the Church.
28.

These weekly Sunday services include the proclamation of portions of scripture

by Pastor Cassell to the assembled congregation; a message preached on the chosen scriptural
passage by Pastor Cassell to the assembled congregation; oral, communal proclamation of
prayers by both Pastor Cassell and the assembled congregation; and communal singing of praise
and worship by Pastor Cassell and the assembled congregation.

7

 29.

During and after each Sunday service, the assembled members of the

congregation are encouraged by Pastor Cassell to converse in, and on the grounds adjacent to,
the church building to build fellowship and morale, individually and collectively, among
congregation members so they may better perform the congregation’s scripturally mandated
evangelical function.
30.

The assembly of members of the congregation at these Sunday services, the

communal prayer and singing, the communal preaching and fellowship, and the informal
conversation and fellowship among congregation members after the services are all essential
parts of a functioning Christian congregation.
31.

The weekly Sunday worship and prayer services are the central religious rites of

the Church congregation. See, e.g., James 5:14 (“Is any sick among you? Let him call for the
elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord .
. . .”) & Hebrews 10:24-25 (“And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love
and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but
encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.”). The congregation
cannot truly “work from home,” without forfeiting many of the great spiritual and religious
benefits and comforts they receive from Plaintiffs.
32.

From the time that he founded the Church, Pastor Cassell has also engaged in

visits to and meetings with his congregants and community members for the purpose of prayer
and spiritual counseling and support. See, e.g., Matthew 18:20 (“For where two or three are
gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”). In today’s crisis, with many in
Stephenson County and surrounding areas out of work or suffering other economic,
psychological, or emotional distress, Pastor Cassell’s spiritual visits and counseling are vitally
necessary to the health and well-being of the community. For a father out of work, a young
8

 person at risk for suicide, or a mom dealing with substance abuse, a “Zoom meeting” just doesn’t
cut it.
33.

Pastor Cassell’s organization of Sunday services, his role as senior pastor and

preacher, and his prayer and spiritual counseling visits and meetings are central functions of his
leadership of the Church. Pastor Cassell believes and teaches these functions are scripturally
mandated for anyone claiming to hold the office of pastor of a Christian congregation. They are,
therefore, religiously required for Pastor Cassell to perform.
B.

Defendants Have Illegally Shuttered Illinois’ Churches By Declaring Them
“Non-Essential” And Forbidden Residents From Leaving Their Homes For
Church Or Religious Purposes.

34.

On March 9, 2020, Defendant Pritzker declared the entire State of Illinois a

“disaster area” due to the coronavirus epidemic and invoked his powers under the Illinois
Emergency Management Agency Act (“IEMA Act”). (linked at https://coronavirus.illinois.gov/
s/resources-for-executive-orders).
35.

The IEMA Act, at 20 ILCS 3305/7, provides that, “In the event of a disaster, as

defined in Section 4, the Governor may, by proclamation declare that a disaster exists. Upon
such proclamation, the Governor shall have and may exercise for a period not to exceed 30 days
the following emergency powers.” The Act defines “disaster” to mean “an occurrence or threat
of widespread or severe damage, injury or loss of life or property resulting from any natural or
technological cause, including but not limited to . . . epidemic . . . .”
36.

On April 2, 2020, Defendant Pritzker issued another proclamation in relation to

the coronavirus epidemic purporting to extend his powers another 30 days under IEMA Act, and
stating that, “I find that a continuing disaster exists . . . . This proclamation continues the
Governor’s authority to exercise all of the emergency powers provided in” the Act. (linked at
https://coronavirus.illinois.gov/s/resources-for-executive-orders).
9

 37.

On or about April 23, 2020, Defendant Pritzker stated his intent to issue another

disaster proclamation in relation to the coronavirus epidemic purporting to extend his powers an
additional 30 days.
38.

Defendant Pritzker has issued a number of executive orders in relation to the

coronavirus epidemic and purporting to exercise his authority under the IEMA Act, including his
first “stay-at-home order” in Executive Order (“EO”) 2020-10, issued March 20, 2020, which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A. He purported to extend that stay-at-home order, in relevant part, in
EO 2020-18. On or about April 23, 2020, he stated his intent to extend that purported stay-athome order until May 30, 2020. The intended new stay-at-home order released to the media by
the Pritzker Administration, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, adds dog grooming, golfing,
and fishing to the list of “essentials.” (Found at https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/4/24/
21235051/extended-say-at-home-order-illinois-full-text-pritzker-read-masks). Under the new
order, while congregants will be able to travel to take their pets for grooming, they will still be
forbidden to travel for religious purposes and their churches will continue to be shut down as
“non-essential,” until at least May 30.
39.

EO 2020-104 commands that, “With exceptions as outlined below, all individuals

currently living within the State of Illinois are ordered to stay at home or at their place of
residence except as allowed in this Executive Order….All persons may leave their homes or
place of residence only for Essential Activities, Essential Governmental Functions, or to operate
Essential Businesses and Operations, all as defined below.” Sec. 1, par. 1.

4

All citations are to EO 2020-10 as the model for the relevant executive orders. EO 2020-18
purported to extend 2020-10 until the end of April without changes. See,
https://www2.illinois.gov/Pages/Executive-Orders/ExecutiveOrder2020-18.aspx (“Executive
Order 2020-10 is continued and extended in its entirety for the duration of the Gubernatorial
Disaster Proclamations, which currently extends through April 30, 2020.”) The upcoming
announced EO inserts a new section 1 and moves the current section 1 into new EO section 2.
10

 40.

EO 2020-10 further prohibits “all public and private gatherings of any number of

people outside a single household.” Sec. 1, par. 3.
41.

EO 2020-10 sweeps within its ambit any “non-profit … entities,” including the

Church (and all Illinois churches), in its definition section, as follows: “Businesses covered by
this Executive Order. For the purposes of this Executive Order, covered businesses include any
for-profit, non-profit, or educational entities, regardless of the nature of the service, the function
it performs, or its corporate or entity structure.” Sec. 1, par. 11.
42.

EO 2020-10 separates all businesses into one of two categories, “essential” and

“non-essential,” commanding that, “Non-essential business and operations must cease. All
businesses and operations in the State, except Essential Businesses and Operations as defined
below, are required to cease all activities within the State except Minimum Basic Operations, as
defined below.” Sec. 1, par. 2.
43.

EO 2020-10 expressly recognizes religious nonprofits and allows for them to

operate as “essential businesses,” but only “when providing food, shelter, and social services,
and other necessities of life for economically disadvantaged or otherwise needy individuals,
individuals who need assistance as a result of this emergency, and people with disabilities.” Sec.
1 par. 12(c).
44.

Under a plain reading of EO 2020-10, the Church is subject to its regulations as a

“business.” But Plaintiffs’ prayer and worship services, ministries, and pastoral and spiritual
visits are entirely prohibited, insofar as they do not involve the provision of “food, shelter, and
social services,” etc.5 Further, while the Church’s congregants may leave their homes for alleged

5

EO 2020-10 allows an exception for “non-essential businesses” to continue “Minimum Basic
Operations,” which it defines as including in relevant part, “The minimum necessary activities to
maintain the value of the business’s inventory, preserve the condition of the business’s physical
plant and equipment, ensure security, process payroll and employee benefits, or for related
11

 “essential” purposes, they and Pastor Cassell are barred from leaving their homes to attend the
Church’s services and ministries.
45.

Defendant Pritzker has further expressed official hostility to religious exercise,

going so far as to reaffirm his ban on even drive-in parking lot church services. See,
https://www.news-gazette.com/coronavirus/saturdays-coronavirus-updates-pritzker-cautionsagainst-easter-drive-in-services-3-new-cases-in-champaign/article_b02a195c-7c10-11ea-abff0b35a3b4cc97.html (“On Easter eve, Gov. J.B. Pritzker cautioned against churches holding
drive-in services in their parking lots.”). Local officials in Illinois have enforced Pritzker’s ban
on drive-in church services. (See, e.g., Peoria County ( https://www.centralillinoisproud.com/
news/local-news/peoria-county-officers-break-up-parking-lot-church-service-remind-people-notto-attend-religious-services-to-prevent-possible-covid-19-spread/) & Sangamon County
(https://www.illinoistimes.com/springfield/going-to-church-or-pot/Content?oid=12070231).
46.

Defendant Pritzker has repeatedly confirmed that criminal enforcement and

penalties attach to violations of his orders. See, e.g., https://newschannel20.com/news/local/
pritzker-police-can-charge-violators-of-stay-at-home-order (“If they refuse and if they repeatedly
refuse, there is the ability by the police officers to charge them with reckless conduct and take
them into custody.”).
C.

Defendants Forcibly Closed The Church And Threatened To Prosecute
Pastor Cassell

47.

On or about March 31, 2020, Defendant Beintema delivered a “Cease and Desist

Notice” to Pastor Cassell, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

functions.” Sec. 1, par. 13. Church prayer and worship services, pastoral ministries, and other
church ministries do not fall within this exception.
12

 48.

On March 31, 2020, the “Cease and Desist Notice” was personally served on

Pastor Cassell by deputies employed by Defendant Snyders’ office.
49.

The Notice instructed Pastor Cassell that “your establishment, The Beloved

Church, is required to adhere to [EO 2020-10].” And further that “[i]f you do not adhere to this
Executive Order, the Illinois Department of Public Health has the authority to order that a place
be closed and made off limits to the public.” It also stated, “[i]n addition to such order of closure
issued … you may be subject to additional civil and criminal penalties.” And “[f]urthermore,
police officers, sheriffs and all other officers in Illinois are authorized to enforce such orders.”
The Notice specifically states that “Essential Businesses and Operations have not been defined to
include religious gatherings of 10 or more people” (emphasis supplied).
50.

In view of this Notice and Pritzker’s orders, Plaintiffs have suspended all

communal activities at the Church building, including the Sunday services. Plaintiffs justifiably
fear arrest, prosecution, fines, and jail time if they open their church building or hold religious
services of any kind.
D.

Pritzker’s Orders Allow Gatherings At Liquor Stores And Other Businesses
Deemed “Essential,” While Entirely Forbidding Church Worship And
Religious Gatherings

51.

Pritzker’s Executive Orders allow so-called “Essential” businesses to operate with

no limit on the number of individuals gathered therein, while every religious gathering of any
number is prohibited. See, EO 2020-10, passim.
52.

For instance, based on personal observation, Pastor Cassell has observed that

local Menards and Walmart stores in Stephenson County routinely assemble many more than 10
customers in their facilities. He has further observed that neither store requires those customers
to observe 6-foot social distancing as required by Pritzker’s Executive Orders. Defendants,
however, have not threatened those businesses with forcible closure or criminal prosecution.
13

 53.

Pastor Cassell observes that Snak King, one of the largest snack food

manufacturers in the country, operates a plant in Stephenson County that routinely has dozens if
not hundreds of persons on site.
54.

Pastor Cassell observes that “mental health and substance use providers” remain

open for in-person counseling and services, under the “Healthcare and Public Health Operations”
section of EO 2020-10. Defendant Pritzker recognizes the benefit of providing mental health and
substance abuse support services—as long as they are not provided by pastors and churches.
55.

Pastor Cassell is also aware of liquor stores and all manner of other businesses

being open to the public in his community. These alleged “Essential Businesses” operate, while
his Church, which he had understood before this epidemic stood in high regard and enjoyed
special protection under the United States and Illinois Constitutions, remains shuttered. Plaintiffs
contend the notion of regulating churches as “businesses” is already insulting—going further and
declaring churches to then be “non-essential businesses” reeks of rank bigotry. Without relief
from this Court, the churches of this State will remain shuttered for an indefinite future, subject
to the unchallenged, unexplained, and unreasonable whim of one man: Defendant Pritzker.
E.

Pritzker Lacks Statutory Authority To Extend His Emergency Powers Past
30 Days And Issue EO 2020-18 And His Announced Upcoming Order

56.

The express terms of the Emergency Management Agency Act, the authority

Pritzker invoked as the basis for his authority to impose EO 2020-10 and to extend it as set forth
in EO 2020-18, limit the duration of the Governor’s power to thirty days per disaster. The Act
provides:
In the event of a disaster ... the Governor may, by proclamation declare that a
disaster exists. Upon such proclamation, the Governor shall have and may
exercise for a period not to exceed 30 days [his] … emergency powers.
20 ILCS 3305/7.

14

 57.

On March 9, 2020, Defendant Pritzker first declared all counties in the State of

Illinois as a disaster area due to the COVID-19 epidemic. Accordingly, his authority to invoke
and exercise his emergency powers terminated on April 8, 2020. There is only one disaster: the
current COVID-19 epidemic.
58.

Pritzker promulgated EO 2020-10 on March 9, 2020 and its term explicitly

extended only to April 7, 2020.
59.

Notwithstanding the explicit statutory temporal limitation on his emergency

powers imposed by the Emergency Management Agency Act, on April 1, 2020, Defendant
Pritzker again declared all counties in the State of Illinois as a disaster area due to COVID-19.
Based on the alleged authority deriving from that April 1, 2020 disaster proclamation, Defendant
Pritzker, subsequently issued EO 2020-18, by which he purported to “continue” and “extend”
EO 2020-10 through April 30, 2020.
60.

Defendant Pritzker’s emergency powers, including the power to “extend and

continue” EO 2020-10 for thirty (30) days, by issuing EO 2020-18, do not extend beyond the 30
days beginning with his original March 9, 2020 COVID-19 disaster proclamation.
61.

Outside of the 30-day period in which the Governor may exercise emergency

powers, the Department of Public Health “has general supervision of the interests of the health
and lives of the people of the State. It has supreme authority in matters of quarantine and
isolation.” 20 ILCS 2305/2(a). When it exercises that isolation authority to order the forcible
closure of premises to the public, however, it must give the owners of such premises the right to
insist on proof of the necessity for closure in a court of law within 48 hours. 20 ILCS 2305/2(c).
62.

Because Defendant Pritzker has arrogated that authority to himself by an unlawful

purported enlargement of his emergency powers, Plaintiffs have been deprived of the protection

15

 of the mandated procedures and protections that must attend closure of private premises—
including the right for prompt judicial review.
F.

Pritzker Lacks Statutory Authority To Quarantine or Isolate Residents or To
Shut Down Churches

63.

Defendant Pritzker lacks authority under the IEMA Act to impose a quarantine or

isolation on Illinois residents, or to order shutdowns of Illinois churches. The Illinois Department
of Public Health Act (“IDPH Act”) provides that IDPH has “supreme authority in matters of
quarantine and isolation.” 20 ILCS 2305/2(a).
64.

IDPH alone may order quarantines and isolations of individuals or groups or

closures of places, “to prevent the probable spread of a dangerously contagious or infectious
disease.” 20 ILCS 2305/2(b).
65.

The IDPH Act provides the exclusive remedy for quarantine and isolation and

closures, along with ensuring the due process rights of those who are subject to such measures.
See, 20 ILCS 2305/2(c) (“Except as provided in this Section, no person or a group of persons
may be ordered to be quarantined or isolated and no place may be ordered to be closed and made
off limits to the public except with the consent of the person or owner of the place or upon the
prior order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”) & 77 Ill.Adm.Code 690.1330 (describing
process for quarantine, isolation, and closure).
66.

In shutting down Plaintiffs, Defendant Pritzker has not followed the strictures of

the IDPH Act and the relevant sections of the Administrative Code. He has not provided
Plaintiffs notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, nor any due process at all.
G.

Pritzker’s Executive Orders Are Facially Unconstitutional In Violation Of
The Constitutional Rights to Free Exercise of Religion, Free Speech, and
Freedom of Assembly

16

 67.

EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the announced upcoming executive order, are

facially unconstitutional because they discriminate against religious practice, speech and
assembly, while giving favored status to numerous private businesses, including liquor stores, by
designating them “Essential Businesses and Operations,” even though those favored businesses
are certainly no more “essential” as evidenced by the protections afforded religious practice,
speech and assembly by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and sections 3, 4, and 5 of
Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution, and pose an equivalent or even greater threat of the spread
of COVID-19.
68.

At least one other district court has protected religious exercise against another

governor’s executive orders, recognizing that, “While these executive orders begin with a broad
prohibition against mass gatherings, they proceed to carve out broad exemptions for a host of
secular activities, many of which bear similarities to the sort of personal contact that will occur
during in-person religious services. Lukumi [Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)]
indicates that a court should evaluate these exemptions in assessing a law’s neutrality.” First
Baptist Church v. Laura Kelly, Gov’r of Kansas, No. 10-1102 (D. Kan., April 18, 2020) (A copy
of the opinion is attached as Exhibit D.).
69.

Moreover, the epidemic is in a much different place today than it was on March 9,

2020. At this point, it is widely reported that the coronavirus epidemic “curve” has been
substantially “flattened” statewide. See, e.g., https://wgntv.com/news/coronavirus/over-2000new-cases-of-covid-19-in-illinois-59-additional-deaths/ (“As infection rates seem to suggest a
“flattening” of the coronavirus curve in Illinois, officials are scaling back the number of beds
available at McCormick Place. Only 1,000 of the original 3,000 hospital beds at the alternate
care facility will remain operational.”). With the temporary hospital at McCormick Place now
being significantly scaled back, hospital and ICU capacity have clearly proven sufficient to meet
17

 the coronavirus challenge. See, e.g., http://www.dph.illinois.gov/covid19/hospitalizationutilization. “Flattening the curve” to preserve hospital capacity was the principal reason for
Pritzker’s orders: that aim has now been achieved. See, e.g., https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/
local/pritzker-says-illinois-needs-38000-more-beds-for-covid-19/2243800/?_osource=
SocialFlowTwt_CHBrand. Yet Pritzker’s orders as to churches and religious activities have not
changed one iota from the early days of the coronavirus epidemic—when COVID-19 cases were
growing exponentially, and policymakers feared millions would die—to today—when the level
of coronavirus infections is stable. See, e.g., rt.live (Illinois Rate of transmission, “Rt,” at .88,
where “Values over 1.0 mean we should expect more cases in that area, values under 1.0 mean
we should expect fewer.”).
70.

There is no attempt at tailoring in the executive orders, much less narrow

tailoring. Every church in the state has been shuttered, and every pastor and congregant placed
under house arrest, save for “essential” non-religious activities. This has now gone on for almost
a month and a half, with another month to come, and with no end in sight. No thought has been
given to regional differences in these orders. No consideration has been made for church size. No
allowance has been made in relation to particular individuals’ risk factors for coronavirus. No
explanation has been offered to tie any spread of the coronavirus to a particular community.
These orders cannot meet strict scrutiny.
H.

Pritzker’s Executive Orders Are Unconstitutional As Applied to Plaintiffs

71.

The executive orders are not narrowly tailored to the coronavirus situation in

Stephenson County, Illinois. Numerous elected officials in Stephenson County, including the
Mayor of Lena, Illinois, have begged Defendant Pritzker for localized relief from his orders, and
they have expressed their readiness to address the issues presented by the coronavirus at the local
level. See, e.g., https://cityoffreeport.org/press-release-city-and-stephenson-county-villages18

 letter-to-gov-pritzker/ (“we strongly request that you allow each community or region, that
knows their businesses, their people, and the COVID impact on their community to make the
proper decisions on reopening businesses. . . . we feel that a one-size-fits-all set of restrictions
isn’t feasible for the entire state of Illinois. Stephenson County is not Cook County, and quite
frankly, counties like ours have a different culture that, by nature, normally utilizes social
distancing.”) & https://wrex.com/2020/04/28/stephenson-co-board-members-send-letter-topritzker-urging-different-approach-to-covid-19/ (“. . . the current one-size-fits all top down
authoritarian approach to combating this health crisis is unrealistic. We believe the protection of
public health can occur simultaneously with the preservation of freedom and liberty by focusing
on personal responsibility, and by also allowing local officials to address the problem at the local
level.”). The people of Stephenson County deserve relief, and an executive order that responds to
their particular spiritual needs.
72.

Nor are Pritzker’s orders narrowly tailored to Plaintiffs, their 80-person Sunday

services, or their pastoral activities, nor has any tailoring been attempted. Plaintiffs are fully
willing to comply with proper constitutional guidelines, provided by government officials with
authority to issue those guidelines. But they cannot abide an indefinite shut down of their church.
COUNT I
VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION – FREE EXERCISE
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
73.

Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 72.

74.

Plaintiffs’ religious activities are protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the

First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Those protections constrain
Defendants through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

19

 75.

The actions of Defendants in threatening forcible closure, prosecution, and fine

under the “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming
announced EO, interfere with Plaintiffs’ free exercise by prohibiting any religious activity in the
church building and otherwise prohibiting and interfering with the Church’s religious practices.
76.

The “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming

announced EO, interfere with Plaintiffs’ ability to carry out their religious doctrine, faith, and
mission.
77.

The “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming

announced EO, do not serve any compelling government interest, and are not narrowly tailored
to accomplish any government interest, compelling or otherwise, in the least restrictive manner.
78.

The “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming

announced EO, violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment on their face and as
applied to Plaintiffs.
79.

Plaintiffs are entitled to at least nominal damages for this infringement of their

80.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable

rights.

harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from implementing and
enforcing the notice and orders.
81.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory

relief and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief invalidating and restraining
enforcement of the notice and orders.
82.

Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to vindicate

their rights under the law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
20

 COUNT II
VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3 OF
THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION – FREE EXERCISE
83.

Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 82.

84.

Plaintiffs’ religious activities are protected by the Free Exercise Clause of Article

1 of the Illinois Constitution.
85.

The actions of Defendants in threatening forcible closure, prosecution, and fine

under the “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming
announced EO, interfere with Plaintiffs’ free exercise by prohibiting any religious activity in the
church building and otherwise prohibiting and interfering with the Church’s religious practices.
86.

The “Cease and Desist Notice” and EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the

upcoming announced EO, interfere with Plaintiffs’ ability to carry out their religious doctrine,
faith, and mission.
87.

The “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming

announced EO do not serve any compelling government interest and are not narrowly tailored to
accomplish any government interest, compelling or otherwise, in the least restrictive manner.
88.

The “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming

announced EO, violate the Free Exercise Clause of the Illinois Constitution, on their face and as
applied to Plaintiffs.
89.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable

harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from implementing and
enforcing the notice and orders.
COUNT III
VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION – FREE SPEECH
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

21

 90.

Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 89.

91.

Plaintiffs’ rights to speak freely and peaceably assemble are protected by the Free

Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Those
protections constrain Defendants through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
92.

The actions of Defendants in threatening forcible closure, prosecution, and fine

under the “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and 2020-18 interfere with Plaintiffs’ free
speech by targeting and burdening their religious expression, including prohibiting any
communal prayer and singing.
93.

The “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming

announced EO, do not serve any compelling government interest, and are not narrowly tailored
to accomplish any government interest, compelling or otherwise, in the least restrictive manner.
They are not reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions because they burden substantially
more speech than necessary to achieve the government’s interests and do not leave open ample
alternative channels of communication.
94.

The “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming

announced EO, violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment on their face and as
applied to Plaintiffs.
95.

Plaintiffs are entitled to at least nominal damages for this infringement of their

96.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable

rights.

harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from implementing and
enforcing the notice and orders.

22

 97.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory

relief and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief invalidating and restraining
enforcement of the notice and orders.
98.

Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to vindicate

their rights under the law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT IV
VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4 OF
THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION – FREE SPEECH
99.

Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 98.

100.

Plaintiffs’ rights to speak freely are protected by the Free Speech clause of Article

1 of the Illinois Constitution.
101.

The actions of Defendants in threatening forcible closure, prosecution, and fine

under the “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming
announced EO, interfere with Plaintiffs’ free speech by targeting and burdening their religious
expression, including prohibiting any communal prayer and singing.
102.

The “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming

announced EO, do not serve any compelling government interest, and are not narrowly tailored
to accomplish any government interest, compelling or otherwise, in the least restrictive manner.
They are not valid time, place, or manner restrictions on Plaintiffs’ speech because they burden
substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the government’s interests and do not leave
open ample alternative channels of communication.
103.

The “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming

announced EO, violate the Free Speech Clause of the Illinois Constitution both on their face and
as applied to Plaintiffs.
23

 104.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable

harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from implementing and
enforcing the notice and orders.
COUNT V
VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION – FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
105.

Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 104.

106.

Plaintiffs’ rights to peaceably assemble are protected by the First Amendment of

the Constitution of the United States. Those protections constrain Defendants through the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
107.

The actions of Defendants in threatening forcible closure, prosecution, and fine

under the “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming
announced EO, interfere with Plaintiffs’ freedom to assemble by prohibiting any communal
activity in the church building.
108.

The “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming

announced EO, do not serve any compelling government interest, and are not narrowly tailored
to accomplish any government interest, compelling or otherwise, in the least restrictive manner.
They also are not reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions because they burden
substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the government’s interests and do not leave
open ample alternative channels of communication.
109.

The “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming

announced EO, violate the freedom to peaceably assemble protected by the First Amendment
both on their face and as applied to Plaintiffs.

24

 110.

Plaintiffs are entitled to at least nominal damages for this infringement of their

111.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable

rights.

harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from implementing and
enforcing the notice and orders.
112.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory

relief and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief invalidating and restraining
enforcement of the notice and orders.
113.

Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to vindicate

their rights under the law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT VI
VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 1., SECTION 5 OF
THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION – FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE
114.

Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 113.

115.

Plaintiffs’ rights to peaceably assemble are protected by the Freedom to Assemble

clause of Article 1. of the Illinois Constitution.
116.

The actions of Defendants in threatening forcible closure, prosecution, and fine

under the “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming
announced EO, interfere with Plaintiffs’ freedom to peaceably assemble by prohibiting any
communal activity in the church building.
117.

The “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming

announced EO, do not serve any compelling government interest, and are not narrowly tailored
to accomplish any government interest, compelling or otherwise, in the least restrictive manner.
They also are not reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions because they burden
25

 substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the government’s interests and do not leave
open ample alternative channels of communication.
118.

The “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming

announced EO, violate the Freedom to Assemble Clause of the Illinois Constitution both on their
face and as applied to the Plaintiffs.
119.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable

harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from implementing and
enforcing the notice and orders.
COUNT VII
VIOLATIONS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
120.

Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 119.

121.

EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming announced EO, and Defendants’

enforcement thereof violate Plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights secured by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights
enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In
addition, these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and
autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g.,
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484–486
(1965).

26

 122.

Plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of religion, assembly, speech, and travel are

fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. See, e.g., Aptheker v. Secretary of State,
378 U.S. 500, 520 (1964); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 127 (1958).
123.

When a government practice restricts fundamental rights such as the right to

practice religion freely, assemble peacefully, speak, and travel, it is subject to “strict scrutiny”
and can be justified only if it furthers a compelling government purpose, and, even then, only if
no less restrictive alternative is available. See, e.g. Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415
U.S. 250, 257-258 (1974); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 339-341 (1972); Shapiro v.
Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 (1969), Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 488 (1977). The Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes the right to be free from any purported normative,
legal guidelines bestowing unfettered discretion on government officials about interpretation or
enforcement.
124.

Strict scrutiny applies to Plaintiffs’ claims because the EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-

18, and the upcoming announced EO, mandate that Plaintiffs stay at home, impinging on their
fundamental rights to freedom of religion, assembly, speech, and travel. These orders do not
permit Plaintiffs to exercise these rights, unless Defendants deem them “essential” or as
participating in “essential” activities.
125.

Defendants’ mandates are not “narrowly tailored” to further any compelling

governmental interest. Defendants’ have granted numerous exemptions for purportedly
“essential” businesses and activities. Since these gatherings can be permitted, there can be no
doubt that Defendants may, and therefore must, permit Plaintiffs to engage in equivalent
constitutionally protected activities on the same or similar terms.
126.

Plaintiffs are entitled to at least nominal damages for this infringement of their

rights.
27

 127.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable

harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from implementing and
enforcing the notice and orders.
128.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory

relief and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief invalidating and restraining
enforcement of the notice and orders.
129.

Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to vindicate

their rights under the law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT VIII
ILLINOIS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT (775 ILCS 35)
130.

Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 129.

131.

Illinois’ Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) commands that Illinois

government “may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden
results from a rule of general applicability, unless it demonstrates that application of the burden
to the person (i) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and (ii) is the least
restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 775 ILCS 35/15.
132.

Defendants, who are agents of Illinois government and therefore subject to the

RFRA, have violated RFRA by substantially burdening Plaintiffs’ exercise of their religion
without any valid justification.
133.

Defendants’ “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the

upcoming announced EO, do not further a compelling governmental interest, and are not the
least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest, compelling or otherwise.

28

 134.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable

harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from implementing and
enforcing the orders.
135.

Pursuant to 775 ILCS 35/20, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief and

temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief invalidating and restraining enforcement
of the notice and orders.
136.

Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to vindicate

their rights under the law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant
to 775 ILCS 35/20.
COUNT IX
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (28 USC § 2201)
137.

Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 136.

138.

As set forth herein, Defendants have and continue to and will enforce against

Plaintiffs the provisions of EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18, and the upcoming announced EO;
139.

An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants as to whether

Defendant Pritzker possesses the power and authority to issue EO 2020-18, by which he
purported to extend the prohibitions set forth in EO 2020-10 through April 30, 2020.
140.

An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants as to whether

Defendant Pritzker possesses the power and authority to issue an executive order providing for
any additional extension of the prohibitions set forth in EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18 as he has
publicly announced he intends to do.
141.

An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants whether

Defendant Pritzker possesses the power and authority to impose under the IEMA Act to impose a
quarantine or isolation on Illinois residents, or to order shutdowns of Illinois churches, without

29

 following the strictures of the IDPH Act and allowing residents and churches the due process
provided them under the IDPH Act and related administrative rules.
142.

Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Pritzker was without the power or authority to

issue EO 2020-18, by which Defendant Pritzker purported to extend the prohibitions set forth in
EO 2020-10 through April 30, 2020; that he is without the power or authority to issue any
additional extension of the prohibitions set forth in EO 2020-18 and EO 2020-18 as he has
publicly announced he intends to do; and that he is without the power or authority to quarantine
or isolate Illinois residents or order shutdowns of Illinois churches, without following the
strictures of the IDPH Act and allowing residents and churches the due process provided them
under the IDPH Act and related administrative rules.
WHEREFORE, under Counts I through VIII, Plaintiffs, Stephen Cassell and The Beloved
Church, pray for judgment in their favor against Defendants and ask that the Court grant:
A. A temporary restraining order restraining Defendants from preventing or
interfering with communal religious activities at the Lena church building and the
pastoral activities of Plaintiffs wherever they occur;
B. A preliminary injunction restraining Defendants from preventing or interfering
with communal religious activities at the Lena church building and the pastoral
activities of Plaintiffs wherever they occur;
C. A permanent injunction restraining Defendants from preventing or interfering
with communal religious activities at the Lena church building and the pastoral
activities of Plaintiffs wherever they occur;
D. A declaration that the “Cease and Desist Notice”, EO 2020-10 and EO 2020-18,
and the upcoming announced EO, are illegal and unconstitutional facially and as
applied to Plaintiffs;
30

 E. An award of nominal and actual damages against each of the Defendants;
F. An award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in the prosecution of
this action; and,
G. Any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Under Count IX, Plaintiffs, Stephen Cassell and The Beloved Church pray for judgment
in their favor against all Defendants and ask that the Court grant:
A. A declaration that Defendant Pritzker was without the power or authority to issue
EO 2020-18, by which Defendant Pritzker purported to extend the prohibitions set
forth in EO 2020-10 through April 30, 2020;
B. A declaration that Defendant Pritzker is without the power or authority to exercise
his emergency powers beyond the 30 days permitted by the express terms of the
Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, including his announced but as yet
unissued new COVID-19 executive order;
C. A declaration that Defendant Pritzker is without the power or authority to
quarantine or isolate Illinois residents or order shutdowns of Illinois churches,
without following the strictures of the IDPH Act and allowing residents and
churches the due process provided them under the IDPH Act and related
administrative rules;
D. A temporary restraining order restraining Defendants from seeking to enforce EO
2020-18 or any executive order or action undertaken by Defendant Pritzker by
which he purports to further extend the prohibitions set forth in EO 2020-10 and
EO 2020-18;
E. A preliminary injunction further restraining Defendants from seeking to enforce
EO 2020-18 or any executive order or action undertaken by Defendant Pritzker by
31

 which he purports to further extend the prohibitions set forth in EO 2020-10 and
EO 2020-18;
F. A permanent injunction restraining Defendants from seeking to enforce EO 202018 or any executive order or action undertaken by Defendant Pritzker by which he
purports to further extend the prohibitions set forth in EO 2020-10 and EO 202018; and,
G. For such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
/s/ Martin Whittaker
/s/Peter Breen
Peter Breen
Thomas Brejcha
Martin Whittaker
THE THOMAS MORE SOCIETY
309 West Washington, Suite 1250
Chicago IL 60606
312 782 1680
pbreen@thomasmoresociety.org
tbrejcha@thomasmoresociety.org
mwhittaker@thomasmoresociety.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

32

 Verification
I, Stephen Cassell, declare that I have personal knowledge of the factual matters set out in this
Complaint and declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed
on April 30, 2020.

______________________
Stephen Cassell

33