Debate over religious service restrictions during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020

---

These pages were updated from March 2020 through June 2020 and do not contain the latest commentary available. To submit arguments for inclusion on this page, email editor@ballotpedia.org. To learn how Ballotpedia decides which arguments to feature, click here.

---

Ballotpedia is providing comprehensive coverage of how the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is affecting America's political and civic life. In addition to monitoring federal, state, and local responses to the coronavirus, we are also capturing the nationwide and local debates on whether to extend or lift coronavirus-related restrictions affecting the economy, schools, government operations, public health, religious services, and travel.

These arguments come from a variety of sources, including public officials, journalists, think tanks, economists, scientists, and other stakeholders. We encourage you to share the debates happening in your local community to editor@ballotpedia.org.

This article covers the national debate over restrictions on in-person religious services during the coronavirus pandemic, typically issued as part of statewide lockdown or stay-at-home orders. You will find the following:

• Debate over religious service restrictions
• Links to state-specific debates
• Background on changes to election dates and procedures

Debate over religious service restrictions

• Deborah Birx, White House coronavirus coordinator (Politico): 

  "Although it may be safe for some to go to churches and social distance, it may not be safe for those with preexisting conditions. That's why in 'phase one' and 'phase two,' we've asked for those individuals with vulnerabilities to really ensure that they are protected and sheltering in place while we open up America." - "Places of worship 'may not be safe' for some, Birx says," May 24, 2020.

• Department of Justice (Business Insider): The Justice Department sided with Lighthouse Fellowship Church in Virginia in a lawsuit that the church filed against Governor Ralph Northam (D). The church was cited for holding an in-person service with 16 people in attendance.

  "Permitting similar opportunities for in-person gatherings of more than 10 individuals, while at the same time prohibiting churches from gathering in groups of more than 10 — even with social distancing measures and other precautions — has impermissibly interfered with the church's free exercise of religion." - "The US Department of Justice sided with a Virginia church in a legal dispute over whether stay-at-home orders unfairly discriminated against the church," May 7, 2020.

• Attorney General William Barr (U.S. Department of Justice): Attorney General William Barr said the government should not place restrictions on religious activity that are not also applied to nonreligious activity.

  "But even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers. Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity. For example, if a government allows movie theaters, restaurants, concert halls, and other comparable places of assembly to remain open and unrestricted, it may not order houses of worship to close, limit their congregation size, or otherwise impede religious gatherings. Religious institutions must not be singled out for special burdens." - "Attorney General William P. Barr’s Statement on Religious Practice and Social Distancing; Department Of Justice Files Statement Of Interest In Mississippi Church Case," April 15, 2020.

• Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University (The Hill): Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University, said restrictions did not prevent worship in other forms. He also discussed why some restrictions on religious services could not be applied to other activities, like grocery shopping.

  "The objection from these pastors is not frivolous as there is a substantial curtailment in an expression of faith. But this is not an effort to establish a favored state church. It is content neutral on particular faiths impacted by the limitation on crowd size. Their views are not frivolous, but they are still reckless. Free exercise of religion does not allow dangerous acts, even if they are part of a demonstration of faith. A pastor should not be able to disregard public health limits on congregation size to fight a pandemic threat any more than he can disregard a fire safety threat. The real issue here may be more about state law. ... [Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt] notes that the orders do not stop grocery shopping and other gatherings. But religious services can be supplied online, while grocery shopping for most people continues to take actual visits to the stores." - "Why the government can shut down church gatherings during pandemic," April 11, 2020.

• David King, Brad R. Fulton, and Chris Munn (MarketWatch): Professors David King and Brad R. Fulton and research fellow Chris Munn discussed how COVID-19 affected congregation donations and the cash reserves for places of worship. - "Another coronavirus victim: Nearly 40% of churches may not have cash to last 3 months," April 29, 2020.

• Bill Perkins (Dothan (AL) Eagle): "The argument by Moore and his plaintiffs that the mask order, capacity limitations, and business closings violate constitutional freedoms pales in comparison to the coronavirus mitigation measures and their apparent effectiveness in tamping down the outbreak in Alabama. And capacity restrictions are not limited to churches; they have been applied to any gathering. The potential for spread of the virus among people in a crowded church is the same as in a crowded movie theatre, and those were shuttered for months." - "A frivolous suit," September 26, 2020.

• Rev. Jose Rodriguez (Orlando Weekly): "Images of Christians gathered in close proximity, faces unmasked, and in full-throttle worship in the midst of a pandemic, exchanging public health and safety for carelessness disguised as a 'revival,' represented a complete abandonment of the Christian duty of care of neighbor. This is not worshipping a life-giving and compassionate God – rather, what happened at Orlando’s Lake Eola was a demonstration of devotion to self-centeredness and indifference. This protest has come to Orlando as a wolf in sheep’s clothing with the effect of systematically drowning out the cries of communities gasping for air with cries to the false idol of human ego. Instead of responding to those who are in unspeakable distress, those participating act like children, bringing attention to themselves and despising their duty to intercede for a hurting world. They distress themselves with the lie that they have been silenced, banned, and their civil liberties attacked." - "Mask-free Christian gatherings that claim 'freedom to worship' are in fact a demonstration of self-centeredness," September 22, 2020.

• Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, Maggie Siddiqi, and Samantha Behar (American Progress): "Faith communities of all types have been harmed by the administration’s attacks on the health and economic well-being of the American people. The chaotic and mismanaged response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been especially harmful for faith communities, as the administration has tacitly encouraged them to continue large in-person worship gatherings despite the risks and despite public health guidance. . .Many faith communities have transitioned to online services or other highly modified in-person activities in order to protect their congregants and communities during the deadly pandemic. Yet the Trump administration has continued to push the conspiratorial notion that public health orders are a greater threat to religious freedom than the pandemic is a threat to the lives and well-being of faith communities." - "How the Trump Administration Has Harmed Faith Communities," September 21, 2020.

• National Catholic Register (National Catholic Register): "Resumption of religious services cannot come with such a risk to people's health, and indeed their lives, especially as the country moves into winter and fall, when experts predict the spread of the virus will increase. . .Most Catholic churches have taken appropriate precautions to make in-person services as safe as possible, including requiring masks, banning singing and limiting the number of attendees. Backtracking on those precautions before rates stop climbing is irresponsible." - "Editorial: It's too early to require Mass attendance during a pandemic," September 21, 2020.

• Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco (Tennessee Register): "We recognize that the government has a right to impose reasonable public health rules, just as we recognize its right to issue safety codes for our church buildings. But when government asserts authority over the church’s very right to worship, it crosses a line. Our fundamental rights do not come from the state. As the authors of our Declaration of Independence put it, they are ‘self-evident,’ that is, they come from God. We want to be partners in protecting the public health, but we cannot accept profoundly harmful and unequal treatment without resisting." - "In some places, Catholics’ right to worship ‘unjustly repressed’ by government, says San Francisco archbishop," September 18, 2020.

• Isabella Redjai (USA Today): "But in early July, California banned singing, mandating, 'Places of worship … discontinue indoor singing and chanting activities and limit indoor attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower.' Yet the state did not place the same restrictions on protests, as if thousands shouting at protests, albeit outdoors, but with minimal social distancing and irregular use of masks would prove less risky." - "Coronavirus: Churches are essential. If protesters can assemble, so should people of faith.," August 8, 2020.

• Doctors Thomas McGovern, Deacon Timothy Flanigan, and Paul Cieslak (Catholic News Agency): "For Catholic churches following [the] guidelines, no outbreaks of COVID-19 have been linked to church attendance, even though we have examples ... of asymptomatic, unknowingly infected individuals attending mass and other parish functions. Their attendance could have led to an outbreak if appropriate precautions were not followed, yet in each case, we found no evidence of viral transmission. . . .This encouraging news should inspire confidence that the guidelines in place - based on CDC recommendations - are working to decrease COVID-19 transmission. While nothing during a pandemic is risk-free, these guidelines mean that Catholics (and public officials) may be confident that it’s reasonably safe to come to Church for Mass and the sacraments." - "Evidence shows Mass is safe when guidelines are followed, doctors say," August 25, 2020.

• Rev. Dr. Dan Peterson (Seattle Times): "To church leaders who insist on the 'right' to gather or feel victimized, my message (as a fellow pastor) is this: Stop putting yourself, your desires and your rights' before the safety of others, and stop grumbling that the world doesn’t view your church as 'essential.' No church is — at least not in the same way grocery stores are! The only way a church can be 'essential' is by the example it gives to others. To truly 'love thy neighbor,' people of faith must continue to find alternatives to in-person worship until the pandemic passes." - "Church gatherings: A pastor’s plea," July 31, 2020.

• Justice Samuel Alito (The New York TImes): "The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine or to engage in any other game of chance. But the governor of Nevada apparently has different priorities. A public health emergency does not give governors and other public officials carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists." - "Split 5 to 4, Supreme Court Rejects Nevada Church’s Challenge to Shutdown Restrictions," July 24, 2020.

• National Catholic Reporter Editorial Board (National Catholic Reporter Editorial Board): "Throughout the lockdown, so-called religious liberty advocates have complained that churches were being unfairly singled out for closure, when stores or even nail salons were re-opening. But spending an hour inside a church with dozens of other people is not the same as popping into a store for five minutes to pick up milk. . .States that opened up too quickly — few followed the Trump administration's own guidelines — are now having to backtrack. It's possible that churches will once again have to close, too. If staying home from Mass means saving lives, then it's the right thing to do." - "Let's be cautious about going back to church," July 2, 2020.

• Rev. Andy Stanley (Christianity Today): "We are intentionally an outward facing organization. Spending time and money to create safe-ish Sunday morning gatherings struck us as insider-focused. By suspending Sunday morning in-person gatherings we are able to create a strategy that impacts 100 percent of our attendees and has the potential to impact their friends as well. In-person services during COVID is neither missional nor evangelistic-—unless of course the mission of the church is to gather in a building on Sunday morning." - "More Pastors Agree With Andy Stanley: No Worship Services Until 2021," July 15, 2020.

• Brett Harvey and Howard Slugh (Religion News Service): "Orthodox Jews face particular difficulties when asked to take a complete pause from communal life. For example, while many Christians can temporarily worship via Zoom, Orthodox Jews’ faith prohibits using electronic devices on the Sabbath. . .Government at every level has a legitimate role in protecting citizens from physical dangers, but officials also have an important role to play in preserving America’s legacy of religious diversity. Singling out religious Americans for uniquely harsh treatment or even disparate criticism puts that legacy in danger." - "Orthodox Jews face collateral damage from unbalanced COVID-19 measures," July 10, 2020.

• Pittsburgh Gazette Editorial Board (Pittsburgh Gazette): "Area churches should take similar precautions as a way to worship together while protecting congregation members. Whether that means reciting — rather than singing — hymns or using only a soloist or increasing the distance between mask-wearing attendees, health and safety need to be the priority. Worshipping together is a small first step toward restoring many faith communities. Restrictions on singing seem a small price to pay to be able to gather once more." - "https://www.postgazette.com/opinion/editorials/2020/05/24/Church-singing-COVID-19-restrictions/stories/202005190017," May 24, 2020.

• Greensboro NC News & Record Editorial Board (Greensboro News & Record): "Responsible pastors are reminding their flocks that the essence of a church is not the building, and that when people who don’t yet seem sick are spreading a deadly pandemic, gathering for a church service is reckless. Many people find it uplifting to gather to enrich spiritual lives and do good works, but it’s not necessary." - "Some church congregations across the country have met in person despite the dangers of COVID-19. Please don’t.," April 2, 2020.

• Gabby Orr, reporter for Politico (Politico): "Clusters of Covid-19 cases are surfacing in counties across the U.S. where in-person religious services have resumed, triggering questions about whether his administration should reassess its campaign to treat houses of worship the same as other essential businesses, or leave them alone and risk additional transmission of the deadly coronavirus — including in communities that are largely supportive of the president." - "A new dilemma for Trump’s team: Preventing super-spreader churches," June 28, 2020.

• Rev. Jacqueline J. Lewis, senior minister at Middle Collegiate Church in New York City (Vox): "I so badly want to congregate in worship again. However, the science points to religious services as some of the gatherings most likely to spread Covid-19. The president’s attempt to forcibly reopen churches is more than simple ignorance. It’s part of a broader trend of lethal policy decisions." - "I will not reopen our church for Trump. I love our congregants too much to risk their lives.," May 29, 2020.

• Law professors Michael W. McConnell and Max Raskin (The New York Times): "Religious leaders and congregations will have to remember that the First Amendment is not an exemption from law applicable to all. And government officials must not forget that religious exercise is at the apex of our national values. Mass is not a football game, a minyan not a cruise. Worship cannot shelter in place indefinitely." - "If Liquor Stores Are Essential, Why Isn’t Church?," April 21, 2020.

• Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Jody Hice (R-Ga.) (Congressman Andy Biggs): "Every American is free to decide whether to risk gathering in order to worship their God. Every house of worship should be given the opportunity to establish safe social distancing practices that minimize the risk of attending. It is impossible to argue that attending a worship service is any riskier than visiting the grocery store, and yet community worship is just as essential for many faiths as access to food. Worse still is that many states have allowed businesses far less essential than a house of worship, such as liquor stores, to remain open." - "Biggs and Hice Express Great Concern for the Right to Religious Freedom," April 11, 2020.

• Robert Jones, founder of Public Religion Research Institute (U.S. News & World Report): "Churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious institutions are being treated equally with nonessential businesses that are being asked to close to protect public health. For most religious traditions, the idea of self-sacrifice in service to the community and common good are core theological principles. These temporary measures are consistent with those beliefs." - "Religious Services Navigate Coronavirus Restrictions," April 7, 2020.

• Center for American Progress (Center for American Progress): "A legally imposed assembly ban that exempts religious gatherings is not based on scientific evidence. Viruses do not discriminate, and neither should America’s public health response; there is no scientific basis to distinguish between religious gatherings and nonreligious gatherings. Rather than find ways to impose fewer restrictions or exempt entire communities, there is every indication that more restrictions are needed across the United States to stop the spread of COVID-19." - "Religious Exemptions During the Coronavirus Pandemic Will Only Worsen the Crisis," March 27, 2020.

• Maggie Siddiqi, Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, and Eva GonzalezCenter (American Progress): "A legally imposed assembly ban that exempts religious gatherings is not based on scientific evidence. Viruses do not discriminate, and neither should America’s public health response; there is no scientific basis to distinguish between religious gatherings and nonreligious gatherings. Rather than find ways to impose fewer restrictions or exempt entire communities, there is every indication that more restrictions are needed across the United States to stop the spread of COVID-19." - "Religious Exemptions During the Coronavirus Pandemic Will Only Worsen the Crisis," March 27, 2020.

• Robin Fretwell Wilson, Brian A. Smith, and Tanner J. Bean (Canopy Forum): "As exemptions pile up, churches have a legitimate beef. When governments fail to apply burdens across the board, the argument that the government must restrict public gathering for worship in the name of the public’s health becomes less compelling. But the answer should be not to equalize up, giving everyone, including churches, exemptions. More carve-outs will gut the state’s public health safeguards. Instead, we need to equalize down. In a pandemic, we need fewer exemptions, not more. [...] Now is not the time to stand on our rights. It is not the time to pursue contentious religious freedom claims in the courthouse. Instead, it is a time to lead by example, as so many congregations and people of faith have done and to put others first." - "Defiant Congregations in a Pandemic: Public Safety Precedes Religious Rights," March 21, 2020.

• Robin Fretwell Wilson, Brian A. Smith, and Tanner J. Bean (Canopy Forum): "As exemptions pile up, churches have a legitimate beef. When governments fail to apply burdens across the board, the argument that the government must restrict public gathering for worship in the name of the public’s health becomes less compelling. But the answer should be not to equalize up, giving everyone, including churches, exemptions. More carve-outs will gut the state’s public health safeguards. Instead, we need to equalize down. In a pandemic, we need fewer exemptions, not more." - "Defiant Congregations in a Pandemic: Public Safety Precedes Religious Rights," March 21, 2020.

• New York Jewish Agenda (Israel Hayom): "We are rabbis and other Jewish religious leaders representing every movement of Judaism, who stand in support of Governor Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio for using data-driven, geographically-based efforts to contain the spread of COVID-19. . .Anti-Semitism against Orthodox Jews is serious and widespread, and we must ensure that the implementation of public health policies is both culturally appropriate (for example, more Yiddish speaking contact tracers) and does not promote anti-Semitism either in its language or in its actions. But to be clear, requiring masking and social distancing for all gatherings, including religious gatherings, is not anti-Semitism." - "Turmoil engulfs NY Haredi community amid COVID restrictions, protests," October 9, 2020.

• Douglas Laycock, U of Virginia Law School (The New York Times): "The state’s failure to regulate the Black Lives Matter rallies was a mistake. But the state is not forever limited to the least restrictive regulation it has ever indulged in. It can restrict both political rallies and worship services if that is truly necessary to protect public health. At the same time, the governor must define, and try to defend, the exception for 'essential' gatherings. And he will struggle to rationalize the unequal treatment of schools, restaurants and houses of worship in yellow zones. The lesson here can be briefly stated: Nondiscriminatory rules to protect human life can be applied to the exercise of religion. But the rules must really be nondiscriminatory." - "Do Cuomo’s New Covid Rules Discriminate Against Religion?," October 9, 2020.

• Newsday Editorial Board (Newsday): "Cuomo’s move is not anti-Semitic, or arbitrary. The data must drive the response to COVID-19 spikes. Nassau County’s latest statistics indicate that Lawrence, Cedarhurst, Woodmere, Inwood and Great Neck have the highest rates of infections in the county per-100,000 population." - "NY wisely imposes new COVID-19 restrictions," October 7, 2020.

• David Kinnaman, religious organization researcher (Sandusky Register): "Changing in-church services to digital "have altered the 'fundamental relationship that many young adults have with their churches. We’re hearing about worship-shifting, as people use all the tech in their homes to fit services into their own schedules — just like everything else they watch on all those screens. This is another way people are using social media to renegotiate the role the church plays in the lives of their families."" - "How will churches adapt to survive during COVID?," October 3, 2020.

• U.S. Department of Justice (Politico): "To be put simply, Defendants’ current approach to COVID-19 limitations has the effect of treating some forms of protected First Amendment activity differently than other forms of comparable activity and in so doing singles out religious exercise for different treatment." - "Justice Department sides with D.C. Baptist church lawsuit challenging Covid restrictions," October 2, 2020.

• Justice Neal Gorsuch (Catholic News Agency): "Under the Governor’s edict, a 10- screen ‘multiplex’ may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there. Large numbers and close quarters are fine in such places. But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers—no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all. In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel." - "Judge upholds Colorado's coronavirus limits on religious gatherings," October 1, 2020.

• Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel (Catholic News Agency): "The virus does not discriminate between nonreligious and religious gatherings, but Gov. Jared Polis does. There is no constitutional justification to treat nonreligious gatherings better than religious gatherings. The First Amendment gives preferential treatment to the free exercise of religion.’ The plaintiff's lawsuit argued that religious events are held to ‘arbitrarily imposed numerical limitations and capacity limitations that are not imposed on numerous nonreligious gatherings of like kind." - "Judge upholds Colorado's coronavirus limits on religious gatherings," October 1, 2020.

• Judge Trevor McFadden (The Hill): "The city's support for the protests, no matter how they were organized, 'undermines its contention that it has a compelling interest in capping the number of attendees at the Church’s outdoor services. The Mayor’s apparent encouragement of these protests also implies that the District favors some gatherings (protests) over others (religious services)." - "Federal court rules DC church can resume services outdoors despite city restrictions," October 10, 2020.

Additional reading

• "Do Churchgoers Have a Right to Risk Infection?" - The American Prospect, June 2, 2020

• "Pandemic will alter Communion rituals for many US Christians" - Associated Press, May 19, 2020

• "Justice Department sides with Virginia church in dispute over state’s lockdown orders" - WRBL, May 5, 2020

• "Barr tells prosecutors to watch for pandemic restrictions that violate Constitution" - The Hill, April 27, 2020

• "Why stay-home orders during pandemics are legal, constitutional" - KTVB7, April 27, 2020

• "When religion is dangerous for your health" - CNN, May 1, 2020

• "Muslim hearts ache as coronavirus keeps us apart during Ramadan" - USA Today, April 30, 2020

• "Religious freedom attorneys pick their battles amid pandemic" - Associated Press, April 27, 2020

• "Church on a Football Field?" - National Review, April 26, 2020

• "Pastors, Churches Sue Governors For COVID Orders They Say Violate Their Religious Liberty" - Talking Points Memo, April 17, 2020

• "Reopening churches tops schools, sports venues as a priority for Americans" - Deseret News, April 15, 2020

• "Religious freedom and the coronavirus" - Christian Post, April 15, 2020

• "Easter Brings Pushback on Coronavirus Restrictions" - Independent Institute, April 14, 2020

• "Why some churches are holding in-person Easter services in defiance of federal guidelines" - Vox, April 12, 2020

• "Some defiant U.S. churches plan Easter services, ignoring public health guidelines" - Reuters, April 10, 2020

• "Trump tells faith leaders to let the country 'get healed' before holding in-person services" - CNN, April 10, 2020

• "Coronavirus creates conflict for churches, where gatherings can be dangerous but also provide solace" - The Washington Post, April 5, 2020

• "Churches allowed to stay open in states where millions are particularly vulnerable to coronavirus" - CNBC, April 2, 2020

• "Interim Guidance for Community and Faith Leaders" - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 21, 2020

• "Guidance for Churches and Religious Institutions Facing Coronavirus Restrictions on Gathering" - First Liberty Institute, March 13, 2020

State-specific debates

Many debates over responses to the coronavirus pandemic are unique to individual states and localities. Select a state below to read about debates in that state.

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Florida
• Georgia
• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Vermont
• Virginia
• Washington
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

Background

See also: States with lockdown and stay-at-home orders in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020

This section summarizes state lockdown or stay-at-home orders issued in response to the coronavirus pandemic. It does not show or cover whether in-person religious services were restricted as part of each state's lockdown order.

Lockdown orders by state

Forty-three states issued statewide shelter-in-place, stay-at-home, closure, or shutdown orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The map below highlights states that issued a stay-at-home order.

We classified New Mexico's stay-at-home order as active through November 30 because of the following language in the state's health orders since March: “all New Mexicans should be staying in their homes for all but the most essential activities and services.” In practice, New Mexicans were permitted to leave their homes for a broad range of activities, even if it was not recommended.

With the November and December wave of new, stricter coronavirus orders, we decided to end our stay-at-home coverage to work on building comprehensive coverage of practical restrictions.

State details

The table below includes the states that issued a statewide order, the dates of the order, and a link to the executive order.

Statewide lockdown orders, 2020
State	Order dates	Link to order	Official name of order
Alabama	April 4- April 30	Link	Suspend certain public gatherings
Alaska	March 28 - April 24	Link	Shelter-in-place
Arizona	March 31 - May 15	Link	Stay home, stay healthy, stay connected
Arkansas	None	N/A	N/A
California	March 19 - August 28	Link	Shelter-in-place
Colorado	March 26 - April 26	Link	Stay-at-home
Connecticut	March 23 - May 20	Link	Stay Safe, Stay Home
Delaware	March 24 - May 31	Link	Stay-at-Home
Florida	April 2 - May 4	Link	Stay-at-home
Georgia	April 3 - April 30	Link	Shelter-in-place
Hawaii	March 25 - May 31	Link	Stay-at-home
Idaho	March 25 - April 30	Link	Stay home
Illinois	March 21 - May 29	Link	Stay-at-Home
Indiana	March 24 - May 1	Link	Stay-at-home
Iowa	None	N/A	N/A
Kansas	March 30 - May 3	Link	Stay home
Kentucky	March 26 - June 29	Link	Stay healthy at home
Louisiana	March 23 - May 15	Link	Stay-at-Home
Maine	April 2 - May 31	Link	Stay-at-home
Maryland	March 30 - May 15	Link	Stay-at-home
Massachusetts	March 24 - May 18	Link	Stay-at-home advisory
Michigan	March 24 - June 1	Link	Stay Home, Stay Safe
Minnesota	March 27 - May 17	Link	Stay-at-home
Mississippi	April 3 - April 27	Link	Shelter-in-place
Missouri	April 6 - May 3	Link	Stay Home Missouri
Montana	March 28 - April 26	Link	Stay-at-home
Nebraska	None	N/A	N/A
Nevada	April 1 - May 15	Link	Stay-at-home
New Hampshire	March 27 - June 15	Link	Stay-at-home 2.0
New Jersey	March 21 - June 9	Link	Stay-at-home
New Mexico	March 24 - November 30	Link	Stay-at-home
New York	March 20 - June 27	Link	New York State on PAUSE
North Carolina	March 30 - May 22	Link	Stay-at-home
North Dakota	None	N/A	N/A
Ohio	March 23 - May 19	Link	Stay-at-home
Oklahoma	April 1 - May 6	Link	Safer at home
Oregon	March 23 - June 19	Link	Stay-at-home
Pennsylvania	April 1 - June 4	Link	Stay-at-home
Rhode Island	March 28 - May 8	Link	Stay-at-home
South Carolina	April 7 - May 4	Link	Home or work
South Dakota	None	N/A	N/A
Tennessee	March 31 - April 30	Link	Safer at home
Texas	April 2 - April 30	Link	Statewide essential services and activities protocols
Utah	None	N/A	N/A
Vermont	March 24 - May 15	Link	Stay-at-home
Virginia	March 30 - May 29	Link	Stay-at-home
Washington	March 24 - May 31	Link	Stay-at-home
West Virginia	March 24 - May 4	Link	Stay-at-home
Wisconsin	March 25 - May 13	Link	Safer at Home
Wyoming	None	N/A	N/A

General resources

The chart below shows coronavirus statistics from countries across the world. The information is provided by Real Clear Politics.

Click the links below to explore official resources related to the coronavirus outbreak.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
• National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor
• U.S. Department of Education
• World Health Organization
• Trends in Number of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths in the US Reported to CDC, by State/Territory
• Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccinations, Our World in Data (Number of vaccines administered)
• Coronavirus Vaccine Tracker, New York Times (Progress of vaccine trials)

See also

• Ballotpedia: Political responses to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
• State government responses to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
• Government official, politician, and candidate deaths, diagnoses, and quarantines due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020-2021
• Changes to ballot measure campaigns, procedures, and policies in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020-2022
• Ballotpedia's elections calendar