Today, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review Liberty Counsel’s petition for writ of certiorari regarding Maryville Baptist Church v. Beshear. The case involved Maryville Baptist Church in Kentucky that has been wrongly denied “prevailing party status,” as well as attorney’s fees and costs, from its 2020 legal victory over the state’s unconstitutional COVID-19 lockdowns on churches. The petition presented a critically important Due Process Clause question regarding whether a vested right earned from a legal victory can be retroactively eliminated several years later by recent changes in legal precedent.
The High Court’s denial of the review was without any comment and is not a ruling on the merits. By declining to hear the case, the High Court leaves a serious Due Process claim unresolved. The decision maintains a retroactive judgment from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which denies the church a vested right from winning a preliminary injunction in its case. The Sixth Circuit had retroactively denied the church’s prevailing status based on a February 2025 SCOTUS decision in Lackey v. Stinnie that was made several years after Maryville Baptist Church won its case. In Lackey, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that earning a preliminary injunction and not a permanent injunction does not make a plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of a fee award, despite the longstanding practice of courts awarding prevailing status for preliminary injunctions. However, the Sixth Circuit’s denial seemingly conflicts with previous Supreme Court precedent and numerous other state and federal rulings that have determined entitlements awarded during the final action of a case are valid according to the law that was in force at the time they were earned. In this case, Maryville’s vested right as the “prevailing party” was earned 880 days prior to the Lackey decision.
In the petition, Liberty Counsel notes that Due Process demands that rights once vested cannot be taken away by a legislative act without just compensation, and the same should apply to judicial decisions.
As the petition states, the Sixth Circuit’s retroactive application of Lackey to divest vested rights conflicts with what the High Court’s declared more than 100 years ago, that “the private right of parties which have been vested by the judgment of a court cannot be taken away.” The decision also conflicts with numerous other state and federal courts that have determined entitlements according to the law that was in force at the time of the final action in the case.
The case began in 2020 when Maryville Baptist Church and its pastor, Dr. Jack Roberts, obtained the first preliminary injunction in the nation from a Court of Appeals against unconstitutional COVID-19 lockdowns on churches and places of worship. In a nearly identical case, Theodore Roberts v. Neace, congregants of the same church also won an injunction. As a result of these injunctions, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear rescinded the mandate but has still not yet been held fully accountable for punishing churchgoers with job-endangering quarantines for attending a parking lot Easter service during the unconstitutional lockdowns.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to decline this case is disappointing and the implications go far beyond the specific facts of this case. A judicial decision that changes legal precedent should not be applied retroactively. Retroactive judgments that deprive a party of a vested right raises serious Due Process concerns. Everyone is entitled to Due Process of law.”
SOURCE Liberty Counsel
