Danville Christian Academy, Inc. v. Beshear
The Supreme Court declined to step in and lift a stay that had blocked a religious school's victory over Kentucky's COVID school-closing order, primarily because the order was about to expire before most schools would even return from the holiday break.
The Court left the door open for fresh legal challenges if the Governor issues a new school-closing order in January, but took no position on whether the existing order violated the First Amendment.
How it got here: A federal district court blocked the Governor's school-closing order as to religious schools; the Sixth Circuit stayed that block; the religious school and attorney general asked the Supreme Court to lift the Sixth Circuit's stay.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Danville Christian Academy, a religious private school in Kentucky, challenged a state executive order requiring all K–12 schools to close for in-person instruction through the holiday break. The school and the state's attorney general argued the order was unfair because restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, and other businesses were allowed to stay open — meaning the government was singling out schools (including religious ones) for harsher treatment, in violation of the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom.
The question before the Court
Could a religious school get emergency Supreme Court relief from Kentucky's COVID school-closing order while the order was days away from expiring on its own?
The Court's answer
No — at least not right now. The Court declined to remove the Sixth Circuit's stay, focusing almost entirely on timing: the school-closing order was set to expire within days, and schools were already heading into the holiday break. Granting relief at that point would have had little practical effect since classes would not normally resume before January 4 anyway.
The Court was careful to say its denial was without prejudice — meaning the religious school and the attorney general are free to file a new legal challenge if the Governor issues another school-closing order covering the new year. The Court did not decide whether the original order violated the First Amendment, leaving all underlying constitutional questions open.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
For the immediate holiday period, Kentucky's religious schools remained subject to the in-person closure order. More broadly, the case signals that governors may face renewed First Amendment challenges if they issue new school-closing orders in the new year — and that at least two justices believe courts should not let short-lived COVID orders escape judicial review simply because they are about to expire.
What changes now
The school-closing order expired around January 4, 2021, allowing Kentucky schools to reopen. The case remains on the district court's docket. If the Governor issues a new school-closing order affecting religious schools in the new year, the applicants can file a fresh request for a preliminary injunction, and if lower courts deny relief, they may again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. The First Amendment questions this case raised were not resolved.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether Kentucky's school-closing order violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, whether treating schools worse than bars and restaurants made the order non-neutral, or whether the "hybrid rights" doctrine (free exercise combined with parental rights) required stricter legal scrutiny. All of those questions remain open.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Alito
Justice Alito would have lifted the Sixth Circuit's stay and sent the case back for proper analysis. He argued it was unfair to deny relief on timing grounds when the applicants had done nothing to cause the delay — filing their challenge just two days after the order was issued and returning to the Supreme Court within two days of the adverse Sixth Circuit ruling. He emphasized the case remains live in the district court if the Governor issues a new order.
Dissent — Justice Gorsuch
Justice Gorsuch identified two independent legal errors by the Sixth Circuit: it looked at the school-closing order in isolation instead of reading it alongside the business order that kept bowling alleys and movie theaters open, and it failed to apply heightened scrutiny for 'hybrid' claims combining free exercise with parental rights over education. He also warned that governors should not be able to escape judicial review simply by issuing a quick series of short-lived orders, pointing to the Court's recent decision in a New York case as the correct model for acting even when orders are near expiration.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court framed the question as purely one of timing and equitable relief — not the merits of whether the school-closing order violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, which protects people's right to practice their religion.
- With the holiday break beginning for most schools on December 18 and the order set to expire by January 4, the Court determined that vacating the Sixth Circuit's stay would provide little or no practical benefit to the religious schools, since classes would not normally resume before the order ran out anyway.
- Weighing those equities, the Court declined to intervene — but it expressly said the denial was 'without prejudice,' preserving the applicants' ability to seek a new preliminary injunction if the Governor issues a future school-closing order affecting the new semester.
- The two dissenters — Justices Alito and Gorsuch — agreed on the timing observation but argued the equities should have weighed the other way: the applicants had acted as quickly as humanly possible, filing their challenge two days after the order issued and returning to the Court two days after the Sixth Circuit ruled against them.
- Justice Gorsuch additionally argued the Sixth Circuit had made two independent legal errors it should have been ordered to fix: (1) it evaluated the school-closing order in isolation instead of alongside the business order that left many other activities open, and (2) it did not apply the stricter scrutiny that prior Supreme Court precedent requires when a government action simultaneously burdens both religious freedom and parental rights over children's education.