A thread on the DOJ's order as it applies to social distancing and religious services being broadcast into church parking lots: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-william-p-barr-issues-statement-religious-practice-and-social-distancing-0 (1)

First, IF cities are, as DOJ argues, singling out churches for burdensome treatment by forbidding services, then strict scrutiny would apply under free exercise jurisprudence and the state would need a compelling justification. DOJ is then simply articulating the legal std. (2)

That is just the legal standard under City of Lukumi Babalu Aye. However, IF prohibiting these parking lots services is not singling out churches, but instead trying to limit large gatherings where people travel around, then DOJ is raising the free exercise std.... (3)

Requiring a compelling interest is not the standard for neutral, generally applicable laws. The DOJ would need some jurisdictional hook for superseding states, and we know from RFRA cases, that the feds cannot use the 14h Amendment authority to expand free exercise rights. (4)

So, the difficult question will be whether forbidding these services, while allowing drive-by restaurants, is impermissibly burdening religion under Lukumi. My instinct is that even though religion is being singled out, churches are not being burdened bc they are religious.. (5)

But are instead being burdened bc of their large numbers.The question of whether church services can be singled out for non-religious reasons is an interesting one. If they can, the DOJ order may exceed its authority by expanding free exercise rights these churches have. end