Do COVID restrictions with multiple exceptions trigger strict scrutiny under Employment Division v. Smith when they are not generally applicable?

At issue in this case is the ability of government to referee religious services in a house of worship. Government officials in California imposed COVID rules governing any “business,” which was defined to include churches. These rules – governing such matters as social distancing, masking, and capacity ceilings – contained multiple exemptions, but did not allow Petitioners Calvary Chapel San Jose and Pastor Mike McClure to conduct religious services in accord with their religious beliefs. County officials sought injunctive relief and contempt sanctions for the church’s noncompliance (both of which were overturned in prior proceedings), then sought nearly three million dollars in fines. The state courts upheld fines in excess of a million dollars. The four questions presented are: 1. Do COVID restrictions that contain multiple exceptions, exceptions permitting comparable risks of viral transmission, trigger strict scrutiny under Employment Division v. Smith , 494 U.S. 872 (1990), because they are not “g enerally applicable”? 2. Should this Court hold that the church autonomy doctrine, which provides an exception to Smith , includes not just a “ministerial exception” but also a “liturgical exception”? 3. If Smith does not require strict scrutiny in this case and does not include a liturgical exception, but instead allows governments to micromanage religious services, should this Court overrule Smith as incompatible with a proper reading of the Free Exercise Clause? ii 4. Is the imposition of over a million dollars in fines on a church for its adherence to its religious requirements for worship services a violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment? iii CORPORATE DISCLO SURE STATEMENT Petitioner Calvary Chapel San Jose has no parent corporation, and no publicly held company owns 10% or more of its stock. iv STATEMENT OF