Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 1 of 27

John Kaempf, OSB #925391
KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: (503) 224-5006
Email: john@kaempflawfirm.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
HORIZON CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, an
Oregon nonprofit corporation;
MCMINNVILLE CHRISTIAN
ACADEMY, an Oregon nonprofit
corporation; and LIFE CHRISTIAN
SCHOOL, an assumed business name,

Civil No.
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
(TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION)

Plaintiffs,
v.
KATE BROWN, GOVERNOR OF THE
STATE OF OREGON, in her official
capacity only,
Defendant.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Plaintiffs, three Christian nonprofit schools located in Oregon, allege as follows:
1.
This Court has jurisdiction over this civil rights action because it raises federal
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 1

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 2 of 27

questions under the United States Constitution, specifically the First and Fourteenth
Amendments, and under federal law, particularly 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has subject
matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This Court has authority to grant the
requested declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, the requested injunctive
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and FRCP 85, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under
42 U.S.C. § 1988 and §1920. The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction of all claims
herein under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and Ex parte Young, 209 US 123 (1908) (a plaintiff
alleging a violation of federal law may seek prospective injunctive relief against a
responsible state official). Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because
a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District,
and Defendant resides in this District.
2.
Defendant Kate Brown is the Governor of the State of Oregon. Plaintiffs sue her in
her official capacity only. All of Defendant’s actions that have deprived Plaintiffs of rights
under the U.S. Constitution have been taken under color of law.
3.
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 220; and to grant costs, including
reasonable docketing and attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1988.
4.
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, their students, the parents and
guardians of their students, and Plaintiffs’ employees.

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 2

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 3 of 27

5.
Defendant’s Executive Order “EO” 20-28, issued June 12, 1010, states that
“Oregon’s institutions of higher education play a critical role in the social and economic
wellbeing of our state. It is important, as we navigate reopening Oregon, and the challenges
to come, that we ensure that higher education institutions can fulfil their missions while also
protecting the health and wellbeing of their students, faculty, staff, administration, and
broader communities.” “I am ordering the following: …For purposes of this Executive
Order, ‘colleges and universities’ include “public universities listed in ORS 352.002, a
community college operated under ORS chapter 341, and degree-granting private colleges
and universities that operate in Oregon.” And “in-person instruction, research, and
residential activities at colleges and universities may only take place” if they comply with
“requirements for face coverings, physical distancing, sanitization, monitoring, and isolation
procedures.” “This Executive Order” may “be enforced as permitted under ORS 431A.010.
In addition to any other penalty that may be imposed under applicable laws, any person,
business, or entity found to be in violation of this Executive Order” is “subject to the
penalties described in ORS 401.990.” The provisions of this EO “are effective June 14,
2020, and remain in effect until terminated by the Governor.” (Emphasis added)
6.
But EO 20-30, issued June 30, 2020, states that “as recent large-scale outbreaks tied
to” a “house of worship demonstrate, spikes in cases can occur rapidly.” And EO 20-30
continues EO 20-27 without modification. EO 20-27, issued June 5, 2020, states, in relevant
part, that “cultural, civic, and faith-based gatherings of more than 25 people are

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 3

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 4 of 27

prohibited.” (Emphasis added.)
7.
Defendant violated the First Amendment and parallel provisions of the Oregon
Constitution by unilaterally decreeing that “public universities” must remain open for in
person classes, but “houses of worship” and “faith-based gatherings” are “prohibited.” In
terms of the claimed public health risks, there is no difference between these two sets of
entities. For example, Defendant provides no reason why the Coronavirus would spread
more quickly at a “faith-based gathering,” or a Christian elementary or high school, than in
an Oregon State University classroom. That makes Defendant’s EOs arbitrary, irrational,
unconstitutional, and unenforceable as to Plaintiffs. This is why Plaintiffs brought this action
to enforce their federal and state constitutional rights.
8.
Fear of the coronavirus epidemic has gripped Oregon, 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 Oregon.
9.
In many states, these stay-at-home orders protect the constitutional rights of religious
entities and believers during the epidemic, but not so in Oregon. Defendant, through her EOs,
declared religious entities nonessential and commanded them to shut down. Defendant’s
actions during the epidemic demonstrate an illegal and discriminatory hostility to religious
practices, beliefs, and, institutions, and people of faith. She has violated the fundamental

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 4

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 5 of 27

religious liberties of Oregonians in violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause
and parallel provisions of the Oregon Constitution.
10.
Plaintiffs sincerely believe that, especially in these uncertain times, Oregonians need
the spirit of Almighty God.
11.
Oregon’s religious schools are no less “essential” than its public universities to the
health and wellbeing of its residents.
12.
Defendant has intentionally denigrated Oregon’s religious schools and people of faith
by relegating them to second-class citizenship.
13.
Defendant has no compelling justification for her discriminatory treatment of
Plaintiffs and other religious schools. Nor has she attempted to tailor her EOs to the least
restrictive means necessary to meet any arguable compelling interest.
14.
Plaintiffs intend to reopen at the end of this month and in early September 2020.
Plaintiffs justifiably fear arrest and prosecution if they do so without immediate relief from
this Court.
15.
Plaintiffs seek temporary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendant’s EOs.

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 5

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 6 of 27

16.
Defendant shuttering Plaintiffs is illegal and unconstitutional on its face and as
applied to Plaintiffs under the U. S and Oregon Constitutions.
17.
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 attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
18.
Plaintiffs sincerely believe and teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
19.
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 is the final authority for all Christian faith and practice.
20.
Plaintiffs are passionate to share the love of God with their students, who form what
they believe is their Christian school family.
21.
The assembly of Plaintiffs’ students and teachers, the communal prayer and singing,
and the informal conversation and fellowship among school members are all essential parts
of a functioning Christian school.

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 6

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 7 of 27

22.
Plaintiffs’ students cannot truly learn the Christian faith from home without forfeiting
many of the great spiritual and religious benefits and comforts they receive from Plaintiffs.
Zoom meetings are not the same as attending a Christian school in person in fellowship with
other students and the faculty.
23.
Defendant illegally shuttered Plaintiffs by declaring them “nonessential” and
forbidding Oregon residents from leaving their homes to attend religious schools.
24.
Defendant’s EOs are facially unconstitutional in violation of the federal and state
constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion, free speech, free assembly, and freedom
of association.
25.
The epidemic is in a much different place today than it was in March 2020. At this
point, it is widely reported that the epidemic “curve” has been substantially “flattened”
statewide.
26.
There is no attempt at tailoring in the EOs, much less narrow tailoring. Every
religious elementary and high school in Oregon has been shuttered. This has now gone on
for about 5 months, and with no end in sight.
27.
Regardless of Defendant’s purported reasons for this disparate treatment of Plaintiffs

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 7

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 8 of 27

and public universities, they cannot survive constitutional scrutiny. Under the Free Exercise
Clause, a law is not generally applicable, and thus triggers strict scrutiny, when it “fail[s] to
prohibit nonreligious conduct that endangers” the government’s interest “in a similar or
greater degree” than the prohibited religious conduct. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye,
Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 542 (1993). That is exactly what Defendant’s EOs do.
They do not meet strict scrutiny.
28.
Plaintiffs are willing to comply with proper constitutional guidelines, provided by
government officials with authority to issue those guidelines. But they cannot abide an
indefinite shutdown of their religious schools while, for no legitimate reason, Defendant
keeps Oregon’s public universities open, among other entities.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION—FREE EXERCISE—42 U.S.C. § 1983)
29.
Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs above.
30.
Plaintiffs’ religious activities, including operating their schools, are protected by the
Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Those
protections constrain Defendant through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
31.
The actions of Defendant in threatening forcible closure, prosecution, and fines

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 8

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 9 of 27

interfere with Plaintiffs’ free exercise by prohibiting religious activity in their school
buildings, and otherwise prohibiting and interfering with Plaintiffs’ religious practices. The
EOs interfere with Plaintiffs’ ability to carry out their religious doctrine, faith, and mission.
32.
The EOs violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment on their face and as
applied to Plaintiffs.
33.
Plaintiffs are entitled to at least nominal damages for this infringement of their rights.
34.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm
to their constitutional rights unless Defendant is enjoined from implementing and enforcing
her EOs against them. Religious schools serve as an essential service. The educational,
psychosocial, and emotional wellbeing of Plaintiffs’ students must take precedence. Not
only is Plaintiffs’ student’s wellbeing on the line during the pandemic, but so is Plaintiffs’
viability as religious organizations. They will suffer drastically should they not be allowed
to gather in person for school.
35.
Plaintiff McMinnville Christian Academy “MCA” is an essential part of the
McMinnville community. Its teachers provide an education that distance learning does not
provide. It is a safe place for students to learn to communicate and have the healthy social
interactions they lack when they are participating in online distance learning. Not only will
MCA students suffer from online learning only, but so will MCA itself. It will not be able to

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 9

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 10 of 27

operate if it is not allowed to meet and conduct school in person, and it will have to
permanently close. A minimum estimated 50 students would unenroll from Preschool-8th
grade. It has already seen 11 students leave with the threat from Defendant’s EOs and
Oregon Department of Education mandates. It already had 7 students leave because of the
uncertainty of the upcoming school year being in person or not. It also has families who
heavily rely on the afterschool program who would potentially unenroll if MCA cannot
provide that in-person service. 50 withdrawn students at its elementary tuition price of
$6,000, and 18 students at its preschool rate of $7,125 would result in a loss of income of
$428,250. It would not be able to meet budget with the number of students it would have
remaining, and would have to permanently close. MCA has 18 employees, and needs 10
students in each class to keep from terminating employees. It has parents calling daily about
removing their child from MCA because of the possibility of distance learning. 98 families
would be impacted by MCA closing. MCA has been educating students since 1994 and
wants to continue educating future leaders. It cannot do that unless it is allowed to
immediately reopen for students and employees in person.
36.
Plaintiff Horizon Christian School “HCS” has been serving families in Oregon as a
private Christian School since 1977. It is the only PK-12 private school within 30 miles of
Hood River. Its mission is to build a solid foundation for life by providing students with an
excellent education that integrates academic achievement, Biblical truth, and Christian
character development. It pledges to be an educational community that faithfully models the
Christian life for the glory of God. Its vision is based on the example of Jesus Christ. It

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 10

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 11 of 27

believes that for it to be on mission, and to fulfill its stated vision and mission, its students
need to be experience on-campus in-person learning. The American Association of
Pediatrics says: “The importance of in-person learning is well-documented, and there is
already evidence of the negative impacts on children because of school closures in the Spring
of 2020.” HCS experienced this firsthand when one of its students, 13 years-old, committed
suicide at the end of this Spring. It seemed to be the result of being isolated from her
classmates. HCS never wants to experience that again, and is further committed to having
on-campus learning. Defendant’s EOs force HCS to operate in a manner antithetical to its
sincere religious beliefs, including the deprivation of the personal connections in education it
values. If comprehensive distance learning is the only option available, HCS will be
damaged, for example, as follows: Its commitment to its current and potential families over
the past several months has been that it will have on-campus in-person learning. Because of
the desire of its families to have on-campus learning, they made financial commitments to
HCS. Nearly one-third, or about 60 current students, and 30 new students, would unenroll.
With the average tuition around $8,000, this could mean a financial loss of about $720,000.
HCS may not be able to survive that kind of financial loss. It is also not able to keep all
teachers due to families unenrolling. It may have to terminate 4 or 5 full-time teachers.
Safety for students is the number one priority of HCS and its parents. When HCS is able to
be on mission and focusing on its vision, the safety of its students is most important. But
that safety is not just physical. HCS and its families are committed to not only the physical
safety, but the emotional, social, and spiritual safety of every student. This cannot be fully
realized in distance learning. HCS and the other plaintiffs are willing and prepared to follow

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 11

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 12 of 27

the Ready School, Safe Learners guidelines to have on-campus learning.
37.
If Defendant’s EOs remain in force, a minimum of about 40 students would unenroll
from plaintiff Life Christian school “LCS.” In addition, 20 other students have already
unenrolled from LCS due to the uncertainty about whether in person education will be
allowed. 60 withdrawn students at its elementary tuition price of $6,662 would result in a
loss of income surmounting to $399,720. It is also possible that significantly more students
may unenroll from LCS due to Defendant’s EOs. A loss of income of this magnitude would
decimate LCS. Current enrollment for the 2020-21 school year is at 175 students. LCS has
24 employees. If faced with this financial difficulty, employee terminations will be
imminent. For example, the afterschool program teachers, one preschool teacher, one
Kindergarten teacher, and one First Grade teacher, and other positions would need to be
potentially terminated. Prior to the recent EOs, LCS enrollment numbers showed the
necessity for two first grade teachers. Also, following Defendant’s EO guidelines, LCS
needed two teachers for that grade to safely follow the required safe learning protocols. LCS
hired a second First Grade teacher to meet the guidelines and requirements first established
in June for the “Ready Schools, Safe Learners” protocols. 147 families would be impacted
by keeping the doors shut to LCS. Its Registrar has given numerous school tours to families
strongly interested in enrolling their children at LCS. Those families have stated that their
decision to enroll at LCS is contingent upon whether or not LCS will be able to meet for in
person education. LCS Preschool classes would see further unenrollment based on
Defendant’s EOs not including preschool as one of the grades that would be required to meet

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 12

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 13 of 27

in person. Should annual revenue decrease by almost $400,000, the viability of LCS will
suffer tremendously, and extreme budget cuts will be consequential. LCS has been
committed to educating the leaders of tomorrow for over 20 years. Its mission to provide an
environment where students K-12 can be transformed by God and in turn transform the
world around them is at risk of permanently ending due to Defendant’s EOs.
38.
Under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and FRCP 65, Plaintiffs are entitled to
declaratory relief and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief invalidating
and restraining enforcement of Defendant’s EOs.
39.
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
under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT II
VIOLATIONS OF THE OREGON CONSTITUTION –
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
40.
Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs above.
41.
Plaintiffs’ religious activities are protected by the Free Exercise Clauses of the
Oregon Constitution. Article 1, Sections 2-3 state that “all men shall be secure in the Natural
right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences;” and “no
law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic]
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 13

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 14 of 27

opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.”
42.
The actions of Defendant in threatening forcible closure, prosecution, and fines,
interfere with Plaintiffs’ free exercise by prohibiting religious activity in school buildings
and otherwise prohibiting and interfering with Plaintiffs’ religious activities.
43.
Defendant’s EOs interfere with Plaintiffs’ ability to carry out their religious doctrine,
faith, and mission.
44.
The EOs 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.
45.
The EOs violate the Free Exercise Clauses of the Oregon Constitution on their face
and as applied to Plaintiffs.
46.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm
to their constitutional rights, including the permanent end of their schools because of
financial difficulties the EOs cause unless Defendant is enjoined from implementing and
enforcing the EOs against Plaintiffs.
///
///

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 14

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 15 of 27

COUNT III
VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION – FREE SPEECH—(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
47.
Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs above.
48.
Plaintiffs’ rights to speak freely, peaceably assemble, and freely associate are
protected by the Free Speech Clause of First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. These
protections constrain Defendant through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
49.
The actions of Defendant in threatening forcible closures, prosecution, and fines
under the EOs interfere with Plaintiffs’ free speech by targeting and burdening their religious
expression and association.
50.
Defendant’s EOs 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 claimed
interests, and do not leave open ample alternative channels of communication. The EOs
violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment on their face and as applied to
Plaintiffs.

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 15

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 16 of 27

51.
Plaintiffs are entitled to at least nominal damages for this infringement of their rights.
52.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm
to their constitutional rights unless Defendant is enjoined from implementing and enforcing
her EOs.
53.
Under 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 EOs.
54.
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
55.
The actions of Defendant in threatening forcible closure, prosecution, and fines
interfere with Plaintiffs’ free speech by targeting and burdening their religious expression,
including prohibiting communal prayer and singing.
56.
The EOs do not serve any compelling government interest, and are not narrowly
tailored to accomplish any government interest, compelling or otherwise, in the least

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 16

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 17 of 27

restrictive manner.
57.
The EOs 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. They violate
the Free Speech Clause of the U.S. Constitution both on their face and as applied to
Plaintiffs.
58.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm
to their constitutional rights unless Defendant is 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 AND FREELY
ASSOCIATE—(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
59.
Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs above.
60.
Plaintiffs’ rights to peaceably assemble and freely associate are protected by the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Those protections constrain Defendant through the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
61.
The actions of Defendant in threatening forcible closure, prosecution, and fines under

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 17

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 18 of 27

the EOs interfere with Plaintiffs’ freedom to assemble and freely associate by prohibiting any
communal activity in their school buildings.
62.
The EOs 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 claimed
interests and do not leave open ample alternative channels of communication.
63.
The EOs violate the freedom to peaceably assemble and freely associate protected by
the First Amendment both on their face and as applied to Plaintiffs.
64.
Plaintiffs are entitled to at least nominal damages for this infringement of their rights.
65.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm
to their constitutional rights unless Defendant is enjoined from implementing and enforcing
the EOs.
66.
Under 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 Defendant’s EOs.

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 18

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 19 of 27

67.
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 under
42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT VI
68.
Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs above.
69.
Plaintiffs’ rights to peaceably assemble and freely associate are protected by the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
70.
The EOs interfere with Plaintiffs’ freedom to peaceably assemble and freely associate
by prohibiting any communal activity in their schools. They 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,
and manner restrictions because they burden substantially more speech than necessary to
achieve the government’s claimed interests and do not leave open ample alternative channels
of communication.
71.
The EOs both on their face and as applied to the Plaintiffs violate the First
Amendment rights to freely associate and peaceably assemble.

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 19

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 20 of 27

72.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm
to their constitutional rights unless Defendant is enjoined from implementing and enforcing
the EOs.
COUNT VII
VIOLATIONS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION—(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
73.
Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs above.
74.
The EOs and Defendant’s enforcement thereof violate Plaintiffs’ substantive due
process rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
75.
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.”
76.
When a government practice restricts fundamental rights such as the right to practice
religion freely, assemble peacefully, speak, and associate, 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.
77.
Strict scrutiny applies to Plaintiffs’ claims because the EOs mandate that Plaintiffs’
students and faculty stay at home, infringing on their fundamental rights to freely exercise

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 20

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 21 of 27

their religion, associate, and speak. Defendant’s EOs do not permit Plaintiffs to exercise
these rights unless Defendant deems them “essential” or as participating in “essential”
activities.
78.
Defendant’s mandates are not “narrowly tailored” to further any compelling
governmental interest. Defendant has granted numerous exemptions for purportedly
“essential” businesses and activities. Since these gatherings can be permitted, then
Defendant may, and therefore must, permit Plaintiffs to engage in equivalent constitutionally
protected activities on the same or similar terms.
79.
Plaintiffs are entitled to at least nominal damages for this infringement of their rights.
80.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm
to their constitutional rights unless Defendant is enjoined from implementing and enforcing
the EOs.
81.
Under 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 EOs.
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 under

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 21

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 22 of 27

to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT VIII
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT—(28 USC § 2201)
83.
Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs above.
84.
As set forth herein, Defendant has and will continue to enforce the EOs against
Plaintiffs. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant as to whether
Defendant possesses the power and authority to issue and enforce the EOs. An actual
controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant as to whether Defendant has the power
and authority to issue an EO providing for any additional extension of the prohibitions set
forth in other EOs.
85.
Soon after issuing EO 20-03, Defendant began issuing a series of related EOs aimed
at preserving the public health and safety.
86.
Defendant issued EO 20-12 on March 23, 2020. In it, Defendant states that “it 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.” It
also prohibits what Defendant deems “non-essential social and recreational gatherings of
individuals, outside of a home or place of residence” regardless of size “if a distance of at

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 22

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 23 of 27

least six feet between individuals cannot be maintained.”
87.
Although EO 20-12 makes no specific reference to gatherings at religious schools,
neither does it distinguish between gatherings that Defendant deems “essential” and those
she deemed non-essential by her. EO 20-12 at least implicitly impinges on Plaintiffs’ free
exercise of religion as protected under Article I,§§ 2 and 3 of the Oregon Constitution, and
the right to peaceably assemble and associate as protected under Article l, § 26 of the Oregon
Constitution, and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
88.
Although Plaintiffs believe, not unreasonably, that EO 20-12 impinges on their
constitutionally protected rights to peaceably assemble, associate, speak, and exercise their
religious beliefs, Plaintiffs have complied with Defendant’s EOs. That is because failure to
comply with EO 20-12 is punishable as a Class C misdemeanor under ORS 401.990.
Plaintiffs do not want to expose themselves to criminal liability, nor do they want their
students, or their students’ parents or guardians, to do so because since they could face a 30day jail sentence and/or a fine of up to $1,250.
89.
Plaintiffs believe the breadth of EO 20-03 and related EOs implementing it is no
longer justified. Based on the last line of EO 20- 12, however, Plaintiffs do not know how
long it will be, if ever, until Defendant lets them resume freely exercising their
constitutionally protected religious freedom rights. But in the meantime, based on no valid
distinction, Defendant allows Oregon’s public universities to remain open. That is

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 23

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 24 of 27

unconstitutional.
90.
Defendant effectively declared a statewide catastrophic disaster on March 8, 2020.
However broad, the emergency powers granted to Defendant cannot exceed the bounds of
the Oregon or U.S. Constitutions.
91.
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court declare as follows:
1.

EO 20-12 is also unconstitutional as it allows Defendant to impinge on

Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected rights for as long as she wants.
2.

Plaintiffs are free to resume operating their religious schools as they see fit.
COUNT IX
(REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)
92.

Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs above.
93.
ORS 28.080 states that “further relief based on a declaratory judgment may be
granted whenever necessary or proper.”
94.
Specifically, under EO 20-12, Plaintiffs have been irreparably harmed through being
restricted in their freedoms of religion, as protected under Article 1, §§ :2 and 3 of the
Oregon Constitution, and assembly, as protected under Article I,§ 26 of the Oregon
Constitution. Both rights are also protected under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 24

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 25 of 27

95.
Plaintiffs will continue to be irreparably harmed every day that EO 20-12 and its
progeny unlawfully remain in effect.
96.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law beyond injunctive relief prohibiting
Defendant from enforcing EO 20-12 and any other EOs that may impinge on Plaintiffs’
constitutionally protected freedoms.
97.
Based on the foregoing, the Court should grant Plaintiffs injunctive relief , starting
with a temporary restraining order, which Plaintiffs request under FRCP 65, prohibiting
Defendant from enforcing any of her EOs relating to the pandemic, and any later EO issued
subsequently to, and seeking to implement, EO 20-03.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for a judgment in their favor against Defendant and
ask that the Court grant:
1.

A temporary restraining order restraining Defendant from preventing or

interfering with communal religious teaching and other activities at Plaintiffs’ schools.
2.

A preliminary injunction restraining Defendant from preventing or interfering

with teaching and other communal religious activities at Plaintiffs’ schools and the religious
activities of Plaintiffs wherever they occur.
3.

A permanent injunction restraining Defendant from preventing or interfering

with communal religious activities at Plaintiffs’ schools and the religious activities of

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 25

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 26 of 27

Plaintiffs wherever they occur.
4.

A declaration that the EOs are illegal and unconstitutional facially and as

applied to Plaintiffs;
5.

An award of nominal and actual damages against Defendant.

6.

An award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in the prosecution of

this action;
7.

A declaration that Defendant was without the power or authority to issue the

EOs as to plaintiffs.
8.

A declaration that Defendant is without the power or authority to quarantine or

isolate Plaintiffs, as well as all other religious schools in Oregon.
9.

A temporary restraining order restraining Defendant from seeking to enforce

the EOs against Plaintiffs.
10.

A preliminary injunction further restraining Defendant from seeking to enforce

the invalid EOs.
11.

A permanent injunction restraining Defendant from seeking to enforce the

invalid EOs against Plaintiffs.
12.

An injunction enjoining enforcement statewide of all 2020 EOs relating to the

pandemic as applied to private religious schools, and any and all related subsequent EOs.
13.

Any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 26

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006

 Case 3:20-cv-01345

Document 1

Filed 08/10/20

Page 27 of 27

VERIFICATION
I, John Kaempf, 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.
DATED: August 10, 2020.

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
/s John Kaempf
John Kaempf, OSB #925391
john@kaempflawfirm.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Page 27

KAEMPF LAW FIRM PC
1050 SW Sixth Avenue Suite 1414
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-224-5006