5/6/2020 8:53 PM 2OCV17482 Ray D. Hacke Ore on State Bar No. 173647 FIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE 1850 45 Ave. NE, Suite 33 Salem OR 97305 i503 917 4409 Phone 916 857- 6902 Facsimlle Attorne for Plaintiffs ELKH RN BAPTIST CHURCH et a1. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BAKER ELKHORN BAPTIST CHURCH, An Non-Pro?t Co oration VARY CHAPEL WBERG, An OAEOD Non- Prof 1t Co oration; VARY CHAPEL INCOLN CITY, An Or Cgon Non-Pro?t oration ALVARY CHAPEL TOHEAST PORTLAND An Ore on Non-Pro?t Corgloration; NEW ZON CHRISTIA FELLOWSHIP, AnOre on Non- Pro?t Co oration,C CAMAS ALLEY STIAN FELLOWSHIP, An Pro?aglo oration; HUR 11 re on on? Pro?t Corporation, PREP WAY, An Ore%)nC Non- Pro?t C0 oration' BND OMMUNITY CH, An Or re Non- Pro?t CO oration, CO ANT GRACE CH, An Non- Pro?t AMPBELL An Individual; RONALD OCHS, AnInd dividua?l BRIAN NICHOLSON, An Individual; JAMES B. THWING, An Individual; MARK RUSSELL, An Individual, PHIL MAGNAN An Individual RONALD W. RUST, An Individual; TRAVIS HUNT An Individual; MASON An Individual; MAYBERRY, An Individual; LORI MAYBERRY, An Individual; BENJAMIN STEERS An Individuali MICHAEL Individual; KEVIN J. SMITH, An Case NO.: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [Or. R. Civ. Complaint (.1!Individual; POLLY JOHNSON, An Individual; BENJAMIN BOYD, An Individual, ANNETTE LATHROP, An Individual, ANDREW S. ANTANASOFF, An Individual; SHERRYL. ATANASOFF An Individual; MICAH Individual and ANGELA ECKHARDT, An Individual, Plaintiffs, V. KATHERINE BROWN, Governor of the State of Oregon; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Inclusive, Defendants. INTRODUCTION In responding to the currently ongoing worldwide coronavirus pandemic, KATHERINE BROWN Oregon?s presiding Governor and the Defendant in this proceeding, has exceeded her constitutional authority: Pursuant to Article 6 of the Oregon Constitution, after GOVERNOR declares a public health emergency, GOVERNOR may only exercise her emergency powers for 30 days. If, in the judgment of GOVERNOR, conditions necessitate an extension of time to exercise her emergency powers to effectively respond to a public health emergency, she has lawful recourse by obtaining approval ?'om three-?fths of each house of the Legislature before the prescribed 30-day period expires. Because GOVERNOR failed to avail herself of the constitutionally prescribed procedure, her initial executive order declaring the public health emergency, issued on March 8, 2020, terminated by operation of law on April 7, 2020, and all subsequent executive orders implementing or extending the original order are legally null and void. Complaint 2 That notwithstanding, GOVERNOR is using the threat of criminal sanctions against Oregonians including Plaintiffs who do not comply with her expired orders. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs named below seek (1) a judicial declaration that Executive Orders 20-03, 20-12, and 20?24 have expired via operation of law, and (2) a court order enjoining enforcement of the executive orders. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs in the herein proceeding, who are named below, hereby allege as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs are, and at all times herein were, US. citizens and residents of Oregon. 2. Plaintiff ELKHORN BAPTIST CHURCH is, and at all times herein was, a religious non-profit corporation that operates a church in, and serves the people of, the City of Baker City, in the County of Baker. 3. Plaintiff CALVARY CHAPEL NEWBERG is, and at all times herein was, a religious non-pro?t corporation that operates a church in, and serves the peOple of, the City of Newberg, in the County of Yarnhill. 4. Plaintiff CALVARY CHAPEL LINCOLN CITY is, and at all times herein was, a religious non-pro?t corporation that operates a church in, and serves the people of, the City of Lincoln City, in the County of Lincoln. 5. Plaintiff CALVARY CHAPEL SOUTHEAST PORTLAND SOUTHEAST is, and at all times herein was, a religious non-pro?t corporation that operates a church in, and serves the people of, the City of Portland, in the County of Multnomah. 6. Plaintiff NEW HORIZON CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP HORIZO is, and at all times herein was, a religious non?pro?t corporation that Complaint 3 operates a church in, and serves the people of, the City of Klamath Falls, in the County of Klamath. 7. Plaintiff CAMAS VALLEY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP is, and at all times herein was, a religious non-pro?t corporation that operates a church in, and serves the people of, the town of Carnas Valley, in the County of Douglas. 8. Plaintiff PEOPLES CHURCH is, and at all times herein was, a religious non?pro?t corporation that operates a church in, and serves the people of, the City of Salem, in the County of Marion. 9. Plaintiff PREPARE THE WAY is, and at all times herein was, a religious non-pro?t corporation that operates a ministry in, and serves the people of, the City of Bend, in the County of Deschutes. 10. Plaintiff BEND COMMUNITY CHURCH is, and at all times herein was, a religious non-profit corporation that operates a ministry in, and serves the people of, the City of Bend, in the County of Deschutes. 11. Plaintiff COVENANT GRACE CHURCH (CGC, and collectively with BBC, CC-LINCOLN CITY, CC-SOUTHEAST PORTLAND, NEW HORIZON, CVCF, PEOPLES, PTWall times herein was, a religious non-profit corporation that operates a ministry in, and serves the people of, the City of Roseburg, in the County of Douglas. 12. Plaintiff EDIDIAH is, and at all times herein was, a congregant of Trinity Presbyterian Church in the City of Medford, in the County of Jackson. Complaint 4 13. Plaintiff RONALD OCHS is, and at all times herein was, a congregant of Trinity Presbyterian Church in the City of Medford, in the County of Jackson. 14. Plaintiff BRIAN NICHOLSON is, and at all times herein was, the pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church in the City of Medford, in the County of Jackson. 15. Plaintiff JANIES B. THWING is, and at all times herein was, a pastor on the staff of Lake Bible Church, a religious non-pro?t organization that operates a church in, and serves the people of, the City of Lake Oswego, in the County of Clackamas. 16. Plaintiff MARK RUSSELL is, and at all times herein was, a member of the leadership team at Calvary Chapel Lebanon, a religious non- pro?t organization that operates a church in, and serves the people of, the City of Lebanon, in the County of Linn. 17. Plaintiff RONALD RUST is, and at all times herein was, a resident of the County of Douglas and a pastor at CVCF. 18. Plaintiff TRAVIS HUNT is, and at all times herein was, a resident of the County of Douglas and a pastor at CVCF. 19. Plaintiff MASON GOODKNIGHT is, and at all times herein was, a resident of the City of Roseburg, in the County of Douglas, and the congregant of a local church. 20. Plaintiff MARK MAYBERRY is, and at all times herein was, a resident of the City of Riddle, in the County of Douglas, and the congregant of a local church. Complaint 5 21. Plaintiff LORI MAYBERRY is, and at all times herein was, a resident of the City of Riddle, in the County of Douglas, and the congregant of a local church. 22. Plaintiff BENJAIVIIN STEERS is, and at all times herein was, a resident of the City of Grants Pass, in the County of Josephine, and the congregant of a local church. 23. Plaintiff MICHAEL CARROLL is, and at all times herein was, a resident of West Linn, in the County of Clackamas, and the congregant of a church in Portland, in the County of Multnomah. 24. Plaintiff KEVIN J. SMITH is, and at all times herein was, a resident of Portland, in the County of Multnomah, and the resident of a local church. 25. Plaintiff POLLY JOHNSON is, and at all times herein was, a resident of the City of Pendleton, in the County of Umatilla, and the congregant of a local church. 26. Plaintiff BENJAMIN BOYD is, and at all times herein was, a resident of the City of Enterprise, in the County of Wallowa, and the congregant of a local church. 27. Plaintiff ANNETTE LATHROP is, and at all times herein was, a resident of the City of Joseph, in the County of Wallowa, and the congregant of a local church. 28. Plaintiff KEVIN J. SMITH is, and at all times herein was, a resident of Portland, in the County of Multnomah, and the congregant of a local church. Complaint 6 hulk29. Plaintiff ANDREW S. ATANASOFF is, and at all times herein was, a resident of Oregon City, in the County of Clackamas, and the congregant of a local church. 30. Plaintiff SHERRY L. ATANASOFF is, and at all times herein was, a resident of Oregon City, in the County of Clackamas, and the congregant of a local church. 31. Plaintiff MICAH AGNEW is, and at all times herein was, a resident of the City of Enterprise, in the County of Wallowa, and the pastor of a local church. 32. Plaintiff ANGELA ECKHARDT (collectively with MCCAMPBELL, OCHS, NICHOLSON, THWING, RUSSELL, RUST, HUNT, GOODKNIGHT, MARK MAYBERRY, LORI MAYBERRY, STEERS, CARROLL, SMITH, JOHNSON, BOYD, LATHROP, SMITH, ANDREW ATANASOFF, SHERRY ATANASOFF, and AGNEW the is, and at all times herein was, a resident of the City of Burns, in the County of Harney, and the congregant of a local church. 33. Defendant KATHERINE BROWN is, and at all times herein was, the governor of the State of Oregon. 34. The true names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1 THROUGH 50 (collectively the inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who thus sue said Defendants under such ?ctitious names. Each of the Defendants designated herein as one of the DOES is legally responsible for the events and happenings herein referred to and proximately caused injuries to Plaintiffs thereby, as herein alleged. Plaintiffs will seek leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to show the names and capacities once they have been ascertained. Complaint 7 JURISDICTION VENUE 35. Plaintiffs refer to and hereby incorporate the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 34 into this Paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 36. Pursuant to ORS 14.060, the Circuit Court In and For the County of Baker (the ?Court?) may exercise jurisdiction over any state of?cial or of?cer, as such, or in virtue of such status. Furthermore, ORS 14.060 allows plaintiffs to bring suit in the county wherein the cause of suit, or some part thereof, arose. As illustrated below, this case concerns Defendant executive orders affecting the entire State of Oregon, meaning all or part of Plaintiffs? cause of action arose in every county in the state, including Baker County. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 37. Plaintiffs refer to and hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 into this Paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 38. Plaintiff BBC is a church that hosts two worship services one at 11 am, one at 6 pm. every Sunday on its real property at 3520 Birch Street in Baker City. Approximately 25 to 40 people typically attend the ?rst service; approximately 15 to 20 people typically attend the second. EBC also hosts Sunday school at 10 am. every Sunday. 39. Plaintiff EBC hosts approximately 12 adults for Wednesday night Bible study and prayer on Wednesday nights. EBC also hosts children in its Discovery Kids program every Wednesday. 40. The coronavirus, aka COVID-19, is a novel infectious agent that may cause respiratory disease leading to serious injury or death. Discovered in late 2019, the coronavirus caused a worldwide pandemic that made its way into the United States as early as January 2020 and spread rapidly from there. Complaint 8 March 8, 2020, in response to the imminent threat to public health and safety presented by the coronavirus pandemic, Defendant GOVERNOR issued Executive Order 20?03, which declared a statewide emergency in Oregon pursuant to ORS 401.165 et seq. A copy of Executive Order 20-03 is attached hereto as Exhibit 42. In Executive Order 20-03, Defendant GOVERNOR declared that the state of emergency brought on by the coronavirus pandemic would be in effect for 60 days. See Ex. [speci?cally, p. Executive Order 20-03 was thus set to expire pursuant to its own terms on May 7, 2020. See Attached Exhibit [a page from the website TimeandDate.com showing the calculation of Executive Order 20-03?s stated expiration date]. 43. Soon after issuing Executive Order 20-03, Defendant GOVERNOR began issuing a series of related executive orders aimed at preserving the public health and safety. Chief among these orders, for purposes of this case, is Executive Order 20?12, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit Defendant GOVERNOR issued Executive Order 20?12 on March 23, 2020. Id. 44. ?To reduce the spread of GOVERNOR declares in Executive Order 20-12, ?the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended community mitigation strategies to increase containment of the Virus and to slow transmission of the virus, including cancellation of gatherings of people and social distancing in smaller gatherings.? Based on the recommendations, GOVERNOR declared in Executive Order 20-12 that is essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the State of Oregon that, to the maximum extent possible, individuals stay at home or at their place of residence, consistent with the directives set forth in my Executive Orders and guidance issued by the Oregon Health Authority.? Complaint 9 45. Executive Order 20?12 also prohibits what Defendant GOVERNOR deems ?non-essential social and recreational gatherings of individuals, outside of a home or place of residence parties, celebrations, or other similar gatherings and events) regardless of size, if a distance of at least six feet between individuals cannot be maintained.? See Ex. [speci?cally, see p. 3, 1] La]. 46. Although Executive Order 20-12 makes no speci?c reference to gatherings of religious assemblies, neither does the order distinguish between gatherings that Defendant GOVERNOR deemed essential and those she deemed non-essential. Still, Executive Order 20-12 at least implicitly impinges on Plaintiffs? free exercise of religion, which is protected under both the First Amendment of the US. Constitution and Article I, 2 and 3 of the Oregon Constitution. Such impingement especially exists because church services, wedding ceremonies, and funerals can be classi?ed as ?celebrations.? 47. Plaintiff BBC and its congregants have complied with Executive Order 20?12 even though EBC operates in one of four Oregon counties which, according to the Oregon Health Authority has had no con?rmed coronavirus cases let alone deaths caused by or related to the disease at any point since Defendant GOVERNOR issued Executive Order 20-03. See Attached Exhibit [a county-by-county breakdown of coronavirus cases and deaths as of May 4, 2020, from website]. 48. Twenty-four of Oregon?s 38 counties have had no coronavirus-related deaths and relatively few coronavirus cases. See Ex. These counties include Lincoln, where Plaintiff CC-LINCOLN CITY is located; Klamath, where Plaintiff NEW HORIZON is located; Jackson, where Plaintiff OCHS, and NICHOLSON live and attend church; Douglas, where Plaintiff CVCF is located and where Plaintiffs RUST, HUNT, and live and attend church; Complaint 10 Deschutes, where Plaintiff PTW operates a ministry; and Wallowa, where Plaintiff ECKHARDT lives and attends church. Id. 49. The counties of Josephine, where Plaintiff STEERS lives and attends church, and Umatilla, where Plaintiff JOHNSON lives and attends church, have only had one coronavirus-related death apiece despite having a combined 92 con?rmed coronavirus cases. See Ex. 50. Only in the counties of Multnomah, Washington, and Marion, which boast the three highest totals of con?rmed coronavirus cases in the state, have the death tolls climbed into double digits and even then, the percentage of deaths relative to the total number of cases in each county has not exceeded percent. See Ex. 51. Although they strongly believe, not unreasonably, that Executive Order 20?12 impinges on their constitutionally protected religious rights to assemble and worship corporately and do other acts that the Bible requires, the Plaintiff CHURCHES including and especially Baker County?s own EBC have thus far complied with Executive Order 20-12 for multiple reasons: a. First, failure to comply with Executive Order 20-12 is punishable as a Class misdemeanor pursuant to ORS 401.990. See Ex. [pp. 3?4, 1i CHURCHES do not want to expose themselves to criminal liability, nor do they want their congregants to do so especially since they would face a 30-day jail sentence and/or a ?ne of up to $1,250. Id. b. Second, even if they wanted to host gatherings such as Sunday services, Bible studies, and youth group meetings not to mention special events such as religious conferences, weddings, and ?lnerals CHURCHES might not logistically be able to do so Complaint 1 I While observing the social distancing requirements set forth in Executive Order 20-12. This is especially given that CHURCHES vary in the size of their congregations, and their houses of worship vary in size and layout. CHURCHES have already had to forego services on Easter Sunday, arguably the most important holy day on the Christian calendar, and are facing having to cancel services on Mother?s Day (Sunday, May 10, 2020), which is traditionally another big day for church services. . Third, at the outset of the coronavirus pandemic, many, if not all, CHURCHES shared Defendant concerns about having too many people too close together indoors, thereby increasing the risk of spreading the coronavirus, especially to the persons most vulnerable to it, such as the elderly. However, given that in many parts of Oregon, including and especially Baker County, there have been few, if any, coronavirus cases let alone deaths CHURCHES believe the risk is minimal, or at least has been reduced drastically. See Ex. Accordingly, CHURCHES believe the breadth of Executive Order 20-03 and the orders implementing it is no longer justi?ed. Based on the ?nal line of Executive Order 20?12, however, [see Tl 53, below], CHURCHES have no idea how long it will be until GOVERNOR lets them resume freely exercising their constitutionally protected religious rights, and are at mercy until she does. d. Fourth, CHURCHES believed any restrictions Executive Order 20- 12 placed on the free exercise of religion would be temporary. Complaint 12 p?I 52. The Plaintiff CHURCHGOERS likewise complied with Executive Order 20?12 for many of the same reasons as the Plaintiff CHURCHES. 53. Executive Order 20-12 concludes by stating that the order is to ?remain[] in effect until terminated by the Governor.? See Ex. As of this writing, Defendant GOVERNOR has not declared Executive Order 20-12 terminated. 54. Furthermore, the closing statement of Executive Order 20?12 indicates the order could last beyond the 60?day expiration date set forth in Executive Order 20-03 meaning that even if the current state of emergency terminated, Executive Order 20-12 would still be in effect until GOVERNOR decides otherwise. 55. On May 1, 2020, Defendant GOVERNOR issued Executive Order No. 20?24, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit Executive Order 20-24 extends the current state of emergency until July 6, 2020. REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 56. Plaintiffs refer to and hereby incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 55 into this Paragraph as if set forth herein. 57. ORS 28.020 permits persons ?whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a constitution [or] statute [to] have determined any question of construction or validity arising under any constitution [or] statute and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or legal relations thereunder? (emphasis added). 58. Article 1(3) of the Oregon Constitution allows Defendant GOVERNOR to declare catastrophic disasters within the state. Section 1(1) of Article X-A de?nes ?catastrophic disaster? to mean ?a natural or human-caused event that: Results in extraordinary levels of death, injury, property damage or disruption of daily life in this state; and Severely affects the population, Complaint l3 infrastructure, environment, economy or government function of the state.? Article X-A, de?nes ?catastrophic disaster? to include a ?public health emergency.? 59. The current coronavirus pandemic meets the de?nitions of ?catastrophic disaster? set forth in Article of the Oregon Constitution. 60. Section 6(1) of Article X-A declares that once Defendant GOVERNOR has declared a state of emergency pursuant to 1 as she did on March 8, 2020 [see Ex. the state of emergency is only in effect for 30 days. If GOVERNOR wishes to extend the state of emergency, Article 6(2) outlines a procedure for doing so: Before the expiration of the prescribed 30 days, GOVERNOR must convene the Legislature and obtain approval of a three-?fths majority in each of the Legislature?s two houses. 61. Furthermore, Article X-A, 6(5) declares that Defendant GOVERNOR ?may not invoke the provisions of? 1 ?more than one time with respect to the same catastrophic disaster.? In other words, if GOVERNOR fails to properly extend a state of emergency as required under she cannot unilaterally extend the state of emergency by declaring the emergency anew. 62. Subsections (2) and (5) of Article X-A, 6 exist to strike an appropriate balance between allowing Defendant GOVERNOR the latitude to act unilaterally in the event of a crisis endangering public health and safety and ensuring that any infringement on constitutionally protected rights, however necessary, is limited in duration. See Attached Exhibit [relevant pages from the voter pamphlet for Oregon?s 2012 general election speci?cally, see p. 41, which states that Article ?will maintain (Oregon?s) system of checks and balances, allowing state government to effectively react to a critical and tragically Complaint l4 LINN challenging event?]. It is thus imperative that GOVERNOR follow the procedure outlined in Article to ensure that she does not disregard the constitutionally protected rights of Oregonians in perpetuity in the name of protecting public health and safety. 63. Defendant GOVERNOR neither convened the Legislature nor secured the votes required to extend the state of emergency pursuant to Article X-A, 6(2) of the Oregon Constitution. See Attached Exhibit [a copy of a news article from OregonLive.com, The Oregonian newspaper?s website, dated March 31, 2020, in which the president of the Oregon Senate declares that the Legislature would not convene to address the coronavirus pandemic]. 64. Because Defendant GOVERNOR neither convened the Legislature nor secured the votes required to extend the state of emergency pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Oregon Constitution, Executive Order 20-03, which GOVERNOR issued on March 8, 2020 [see Ex. effectively terminated by operation of law on April 7, 2020 the order?s stated expiration date of May 7, 2020 notwithstanding. See Attached Exhibit [a page from TimeandDate.com showing the calculation of Executive Order 20-03?5 actual expiration date]. 65. When Defendant GOVERNOR declared a state of emergency in response to the coronavirus pandemic, she declared that she did so pursuant to ORS 401.165 et seq. and made no mention of Article 1 of the Oregon Constitution. See Ex. However, ORS 401.165 et seq. is not a means by which GOVERNOR may bypass the strictures of the Oregon Constitution, which she swore to uphold when she assumed the state?s highest of?ce. See Ex. [stating that Article X-A ?assures that the Governor and the Legislature will be able to work as a to meet the urgent needs of Oregonians who have been subjected to a catastrophic disaster? (emphasis added)]. Even though Complaint [5 GOVERNOR used the words ?state of emergency,? not ?catastrophic disaster,? the term ?catastrophic disaster,? as de?ned in Article 1(1) and includes ?public health emergencies? such as the current coronavirus pandemic. GOVERNOR thus effectively declared a statewide catastrophic disaster on March 8, 2020, even though she did not use the term ?catastrophic disaster.? See Ex. 66. The Court should also note that Article X-A was added to the Oregon Constitution by Oregon voters in the 2012 general election. See Ex. By contrast, ORS 401.165 et seq. became law in 1949.1 However broad the emergency powers granted to Defendant GOVERNOR may have been in 1949, Article X-A, 6 narrowed them considerably, especially since the emergency powers granted to GOVERNOR cannot exceed the bounds of the Oregon Constitution. See Ex. If GOVERNOR is free to disregard the Oregon Constitution under the circumstances presented here especially given that Article prescribes a procedure that GOVERNOR is required to follow in circumstances like those presented here - then she and future governors may disregard it at whim so long as they claim to be doing so in the interest of preserving public health and safety. 67. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court declare as follows: a. Pursuant to Article X-A, 6(1) of the Oregon Constitution, the state of emergency that Defendant GOVERNOR declared via Executive Order 20-03 on March 8, 2020, expired by operation of law on April 7, 2020, 30 days after GOVERNOR issued the order [see Ex. See Complaint l6 Ix.) to U1 UJ 00 b. The 60-day duration set forth in Executive Order 20-03 is unconstitutional on its face. Even assuming the 60 days will have already lapsed when the Court hears this matter, Article X-A, 6(2) of the Oregon Constitution effectively prohibits Defendant GOVERNOR from dictating or extending the duration of a catastrophic disaster via executive ?at. See Ex. GOVERNOR failed to follow the procedure set forth in Article X-A, 6(2) to extend the state of emergency beyond the prescribed 30 days. . Executive Order 20?24 is likewise facially unconstitutional: Issued on May 1, 2020, Executive Order 20-24 extends the unconstitutional Executive Order 20?03 by an additional 60 days, to July 6, 2020, and does so without the required three-fifths approval of three-fifths of each house of the Legislature. Executive Order 20-24 is also unconstitutional because Defendant GOVERNOR failed to get the legislative approval required under Article X-A, 6(2) within 30 days of declaring the emergency, and the prescribed 30 days had already lapsed by operation of law when GOVERNOR issued Executive Order 20-24. . All executive orders that Defendant GOVERNOR issued in furtherance of Executive Order 20?03, including and especially Executive Order 20-12, are invalid. Executive Order 20-12 is also unconstitutional, as it allows GOVERNOR to impinge constitutionally protected rights for as long as she sees ?t even after duration of the state of emergency set forth in her own orders has terminated. Even if GOVERNOR may temporarily infringe on constitutional rights in the face of a catastrophic disaster, she is not Complaint 1? lit-free to infringe on them in perpetuity in the name of protecting public health and safety. e. Based on the foregoing, CHURCHES are free to resume holding religious gatherings, and CHURCHGOERS are free to attend such gatherings. REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 68. Plaintiffs refer to and hereby incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 67 into this Paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 69. ORS 28.080 states, ?Further relief based on a declaratory judgment may be granted whenever necessary or proper.? 70. Plaintiffs have been irreparably harmed evety day beyond April 7, 2020, the date on which the state of emergency declared in Executive Order 20-03 ceased to exist by law pursuant to Article X-A. 1 of the Oregon Constitution. Speci?cally, pursuant to Executive Order 20?12, Plaintiffs have been restricted in exercise of religious freedoms protected under Article I, 2 and 3 of the Oregon Constitution and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 71. Plaintiffs will continue to be irreparably harmed every day that Executive Order 20?12 remains in effect. 72. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law beyond injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant GOVERNOR from enforcing Executive Order 20? 2 and any other executive orders that may impinge on Plaintiffs? constitutionally protected religious freedoms. 73. Plaintiffs can demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits: Even if Defendant GOVERNOR is free to temporarily impinge on constitutionally protected freedoms for 30 days after declaring a catastrOphic disaster pursuant to Article X-A, and even beyond that if she gets the Complaint I 8 LUJM approval ofthree??fths of each house of the Oregon Legislature within that 30-day timeframe, Plaintiffs can show that the 30-day period lapsed without GOVERNOR obtaining the required approval. Since GOVERNOR declared the current catastrophic disaster on March 8, 2020, that means orders have impinged on Plaintiffs? constitutionally protected rights every day since April 7, 2020, and will continue to do so for as long as Executive 20-12 remains in effect. 74. Based on the foregoing, the Court should grant Plaintiffs injunctive relief? starting with a temporary restraining order, which Plaintiffs hereby request pursuant to Or. R. Civ. P. 79, prohibiting Defendant GOVERNOR from. enforcing Executive Orders 20-12, 20-24, and any other executive order issued subsequently to, and seeking to implement, Executive Order 20-03. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant as follows: ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION: 1. A judicial declaration that Executive Orders 20-03, 20-12, and 20-24 have expired by operation of law; 2. An injunction enjoining enforcement of Executive Orders 20?03, 20? 12, and 20-24 against Plaintiffs; 3. Attorney?s fees and costs associated with bringing and maintaining this action in accordance with the law; and 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. Dated: May 6, 2020 PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE RA D. HA CKE Ray D. Hacke Attorney for Plaintiffs ELKHORN BAPTIST CHURCH et al. Complaint l9 Trial Attorney: Ra D. Hacke Oregon ?tate Bar 0. 173647 185 45L Ave. NE, Sulte 33 Salem, OR 97305 Phone: (503) 917-4409 Fax: (916) 857-6990 E-mallz rhacke@p11.org Complaint 20 VERIFICATION Under malty of perjury underthe laws of the State of Oregon, the undersigned certi?es that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct except as to matters therein stated to be on information andbeh?ef, if any, and as to those matters, and as to such matters, the undersigned verily believes the same to be true. Date: May 6, 2020 Pastor Elkhorn Baptist Church Complaint 20