What happened in California during COVID wasn’t just about masks—it was a battle over the soul of religious liberty.

Two conservative legal groups have taken up the fight on behalf of Calvary Chapel San Jose, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn $1.2 million in fines slapped on the church for holding in-person worship services during statewide pandemic restrictions, as WND reports.

At the height of COVID shutdowns, Santa Clara County levied heavy financial penalties against the church, despite carving out exceptions for secular venues like restaurants and retail stores.

Church Penalized for Defying COVID Restrictions

Calvary Chapel and Pastor Mike McClure carried on Sunday services in defiance of county orders, believing that the church’s mission could not be fulfilled through Zoom screens and six-foot rulers.

In retaliation, the county pursued injunctions, sought contempt charges, and hit the church with millions in penalties. Though some contempt rulings were tossed out on constitutional grounds, the staggering fines remained intact.

The county’s approach to enforcement struck critics as both overly punitive and selectively applied—giving a pass to certain secular enterprises while hammering churches for gathering in worship.

Legal Battle Reaches the Highest Court

Now the ACLJ and Advocates for Faith and Freedom have brought the case to the Supreme Court, asking it to consider how far government officials can go when it comes to regulating religious expression under the banner of public health.

As stated in an ACLJ report, “This case presents a new frontier: not just whether churches can meet, but whether the government may dictate the manner of worship itself.”

It’s one thing to enforce health guidelines uniformly—it’s something very different to decide which parts of a religious service are acceptable based on a bureaucrat’s checklist.

Government Actions Raise Ethical Concerns

The legal teams argue that the state improperly treated the church like a business, even going so far as to demand financial documents, including revenue sources and budgets—unusual requests aimed, allegedly, at evaluating the church’s financial gain during lockdowns.

Advocates for Faith and Freedom sharply criticized this overreach, writing that “The county falsely equates a church to a commercial enterprise,” and warned that such attitudes reflected a basic misunderstanding of religious institutions’ rights.

In a more alarming move, county attorney James Williams tried to bring the church’s bank into the fight. He contacted the bank and failed to mention that the fines he was reporting were under active legal dispute.

Private Pressure and Public Fallout

The bank issued a Notice of Default against Calvary Chapel based on Williams’ letter—but reversed course upon realizing it wasn’t given key legal context. The reversal didn’t undo the signal sent: political pressure can spill over into private institutions.

The ACLJ believes the core issue at stake is whether the Constitution allows government actors—regardless of good intentions—to fine churches for honoring spiritual mandates over governmental edicts.

“We are asking the Supreme Court to affirm that the Constitution protects both the freedom to believe and the freedom to practice those beliefs – without government interference, intimidation, or crushing financial punishment,” the ACLJ said.

This isn’t merely about one church in San Jose. It's about setting a clear precedent: whether the rights of free worship can be quietly regulated out of existence, one mask mandate at a time.

For those who believe faith isn’t subject to government approval, this case offers an opportunity to plant a constitutional flag in defense of worship without compromise.