Lawsuits about state actions and policies in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic

Scroll here for more articles
Current coverage
Active COVID-19 emergency orders • Changes to emergency power laws • Federal government responses • Mask requirements • School policies in the 2021-2022 academic year • State vaccine requirement (vaccine passport) policies • State employee vaccine requirements • State plans to end federal unemployment • State unemployment filings • Travel restrictions • Vaccine distribution plans
Vaccines
School policies
Mask requirements
Federal pandemic responses
Travel restrictions
Elections
Economy and society
State policies
Debate about government responses
Click here to see our complete coronavirus coverage
Responses by state AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit

This article covered lawsuits filed in response to policies implemented to address the coronavirus pandemic between April 2020 and December 2023, especially those with the potential to have a long-term effect on the exercise and/or delegation of emergency powers within the context of a public-health emergency. You will find:

• Relevant litigation: In this section, there are two embedded spreadsheets. The first is an inventory of lawsuits involving state actions and policies implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The second is an inventory of lawsuits involving election administration issues in light of the pandemic.
• Noteworthy lawsuits: In this section, brief narrative summaries are provided for select cases that have either garnered significant media attention or involve major advocacy groups.

Ballotpedia’s coverage of COVID-19 included how federal, state, and local governments responded to the pandemic, and how those responses influenced election rules and operations, political campaigns, the economy, schools, and more.

List of relevant lawsuits

The following is a partial list of relevant lawsuits about state actions and policies in response to the coronavirus pandemic. It does not include lawsuits related to election date and procedure changes. That information is available here. Where available, case names and numbers, states of origin, courts of origin, and links to complaints and docket reports are provided. If you are aware of a relevant lawsuit that should be listed here, please email us. N/A in the chart below means that we have not found that information. If you can provide that for us, please email us.

How to use this interactive table: The table comprises 10 columns:

• Case name
• Case number
• Claim type (a brief description of the types of legal claims involved)
• Case summary (a brief narrative summary of the issues involved in a case)
• State of origin
• Court name
• Complaint (a link to the original complaint)
• First named plaintiff's representation
• Order (a link to the most recent order issued in the case)
• Docket report (a link to the docket report).

Scroll from left to right to view additional columns. Each of the 10 columns can be sorted alphabetically. To sort a column, click the column heading. By default, the table displays 10 cases at a time. To see additional entries on subsequent pages, use the navigation prompts (e.g., "first," "previous," "next," and "last") under the bottom right-hand corner of the table. To change the number of cases displayed on a single page, use the drop-down menu above the upper left-hand corner of the table. To print the contents of the table, select "Print," above the upper left-hand corner of the table. To hide or unhide columns, use the "Column visibility" drop-down menu, which is situated to the right of the "Print" command.

How to search the table: Enter text in the search bar in the upper right-hand corner of the table to search the contents of the entire table for a particular phrase (for example, entering the phrase "Indiana university" will return each row that contains those two words). Each of the 10 columns can also be searched individually. To search for a phrase within a column, enter search text in the search box immediately below the column heading. To search for two phrases (for example, case names containing either the word "immigration" or "Nevada"), enter your terms, using semi-colons to separate them (e.g., "immigration;Nevada"). Do not enter spaces between terms, on either side of the semi-colon. Entering spaces will prevent the table from returning search results.

Case name	Case number	Claim type	Case summary	Decision summary	State of origin	Court name	Complaint	First named plaintiff's representation	Order	Docket report

Lawsuits related to election date and procedure changes

See also: Changes to election dates, procedures, and administration in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020

The following is a partial list of relevant lawsuits involving election administration issues in light of the coronavirus outbreak. Where available, case names and numbers, states of origin, courts of origin, and links to complaints and docket reports are provided. If you are aware of a relevant lawsuit that should be listed here, please email us.

Noteworthy lawsuits

The lawsuits covered below have garnered either significant national media attention or involve major advocacy groups. See below for a complete list of all lawsuits that we are tracking.

Alabama

Munza v. Ivey: On August 11, 2020, Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Greg Griffin dismissed a lawsuit challenging Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey’s (R) authority to mandate the wearing of face masks to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19. In their complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the mask mandate was promulgated in violation of the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act (AAPA). The plaintiffs alleged that the Alabama Board of Health failed to meet statutory notice and administrative review requirements prior to the issuance of the mask mandate. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, the order was "nothing more than an expression, and does not carry the weight of law and it cannot be valid or effective against any person or party until the proper procedures are met." In their motion to dismiss, state officials argued that the plaintiffs incorrectly challenged the legal basis for the mask mandate. They argued that because Ivey incorporated the order into a gubernatorial proclamation under her own authority, granted by the Emergency Management Act, the plaintiffs' claims were without merit. After hearing oral arguments, Griffin dismissed the case from the bench without explanation.

The plaintiffs appealed to the state supreme court. On March 19, 2021, the Alabama Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the lower court's dismissal, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to proceed with their action. Justice Michael Bolin (R), writing for the court, said that the plaintiffs had failed to prove they were directly injured by the statewide mask order. Bolin also said that the plaintiffs had failed "to even state that they have refused to wear masks or facial coverings in public such that they could be subject to an enforcement action." Alabama's mask mandate was set to expire on April 9, 2021.

Case v. Ivey: On September 24, 2020, seven Alabama residents, represented by former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore (R), filed suit in federal district court against Governor Kay Ivey (R) and State Health Officer Dr. Scott Harris. The plaintiffs alleged that both Ivey and Harris had repeatedly exceeded their constitutional authority by issuing emergency orders. The plaintiffs argued that the "Orders, Proclamations, and Mandates of both Governor Ivey and State Health Officer Harris" had been enforced as law and thus "violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." The plaintiffs also alleged that Ivey and Harris had "unlawfully and in direct contradiction to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment … effectively prohibited worship services" through the imposition of gathering size restrictions and social distancing orders. In response to the filing, a spokeswoman for Ivey said, "The governor is pleased with our state’s progress in terms of COVID-19 and reminds everyone to keep at it." Although the suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, it was later moved to the Middle District.

Alabama Association of Realtors v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: On May 5, 2021, Judge Dabney Friedrich, appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Donald Trump (R), vacated the nationwide eviction moratorium issued by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In their complaint, the plaintiffs, a group of realtors and real estate management companies, argued that the eviction moratorium was an "improper exercise of executive authority that does not comply with federal law." In her decision, Friedrich framed the legal question as a narrow one: "Does the Public Health Service Act grant the CDC the legal authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium?" Friedrich found that while the Public Health Service Act "authorizes the Department to combat the spread of disease through a range of measures," it nevertheless "unambiguously forecloses the nationwide eviction moratorium." The Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and motioned to stay Friedrich’s order pending appeal. The motion to stay was granted, a decision which the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to vacate the stay, allowing the moratorium to remain in effect pending appeal, The court denied the application to vacate the stay in an unsigned order. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett said they would have vacated the stay, meaning the remaining justices (Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh) formed the deciding majority. In a concurring opinion, Kavanaugh said that, while he agreed the CDC had "exceeded its existing statutory authority," a balance of equities favored the stay because "the CDC plans to end the moratorium in only a few weeks."

Alaska

Forrer v. Alaska: On August 7, 2020, Juneau Superior Court Judge Phillip M. Pallenberg dismissed a lawsuit alleging that state appropriation of federal funds received per the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act violated the Alaska Constitution. In his complaint, Juneau resident Eric Forrer argued that the use of a legislative committee, instead of the full state legislature, to approve appropriation of the federal aid violated Article IX, Section 13, of the Alaska Constitution. In response to the lawsuit, the state legislature convened in late May and ratified the actions of the legislative committee. Following that ratification, Pallenberg declined to enjoin the legislature’s actions pending his final decision on the merits, ruling in July that there are no "special procedural requirements for appropriations bills in the Alaska Constitution." He added that, given the "rapidly evolving circumstances of a public health emergency," ratification of the legislative committee’s actions was likely constitutional. Following oral arguments, Pallenberg issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of the state, thus dismissing the case.

Alaskans for Open Meetings, Inc. v. Anchorage Municipal Assembly: On November 2, 2020, a group of Anchorage residents sued the municipal assembly, arguing that its restrictions on public access to meetings violated state statute, as well as the state and federal constitutions. Following an uptick in Covid-19 cases, the assembly suspended in-person testimony, instead streaming meetings online and allowing for real-time telephonic and written testimony. Citing the Alaska Open Meetings Act, the plaintiffs asserted that "[w]hen the government breaks the law, the statute provides a remedy: voiding government action transacted in violation of open meetings laws." The plaintiffs, in turn, asked the court to invalidate several measures enacted during the period in question, including the purchase of buildings for housing the homeless and disbursement of CARES Act funds. The plaintiffs also asked the court to prevent the assembly from further suspending in-person participation in meetings. In response to the lawsuit, Anchorage Municipal Attorney Kate Vogel said the assembly had followed the open meetings law, "which explicitly allows for telephonic participation."

Arizona

Aguila v. Ducey: On September 8, 2020, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Pamela Gates declined to block Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey’s (R) COVID-19 business restrictions, which shutter bars while allowing restaurants to remain open and serve alcohol. In their complaint, which was originally filed in the state supreme court, a group of Arizona bar owners argued that they faced impermissible discrimination based on their liquor license series. They said that bars with "series 6 or 7 liquor licenses are subject to closure orders in Executive Order 2020-43," while roughly 5,000 restaurant bars, hotel bars, microbreweries, wineries, private clubs, distilleries, tasting rooms, which have different series liquor licenses, remained open. They argued that Ducey’s restrictions constituted an unconstitutional delegation of authority; exceeded statutory rulemaking authority granted by Arizona law; arbitrarily discriminated against plaintiffs and deprive them of their property, in violation of the state constitution; and violated the Equal Protection and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Citing the "unrelenting spread of the novel coronavirus," Gates found that "the public interest is overwhelmingly in favor of the continuation of" Ducey’s orders. Gates ruled that there is "no inherent right in a citizen to ... sell intoxicating liquors by retail," and further, the governor's restrictions "are rationally related to expert data and guidance on minimizing the spread of COVID-19." Attorney Ilan Wurman, representing the bar owners, acknowledged the likelihood of failure on the merits, saying he hoped to "get a summary judgment ruling quickly and just move on to the appeal."

Brnovich v. Biden: On September 14, 2021, Arizona’s attorney general filed the first legal challenge to President Joe Biden’s (D) COVID-19 vaccine mandates for federal workers and large companies. At issue were Biden's executive orders requiring all federal executive branch workers and all employees of contractors doing business with the federal government to be vaccinated. Also at issue was the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's development of a rule requiring employers with 100 or more employees to mandate vaccination or weekly COVID-19 testing. In his complaint, Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) argued that Biden was unconstitutionally favoring undocumented immigrants, contending that “unauthorized aliens will not be subject to any vaccination requirements even when released directly into the United States (where most will remain), while roughly a hundred million U.S. citizens will be subject to unprecedented vaccination requirements.” Brnovich contended that this disparate treatment amounted to a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, suggesting that the mandates reflected "an unmistakable—and unconstitutional—brand of favoritism in favor of unauthorized aliens." Brnovich sought a court judgment declaring the mandates unconstitutional and an injunction barring their enforcement. In a press statement, Brnovich said, "There can be no serious or scientific discussion about containing the spread of COVID-19 that doesn't begin at our southern border." The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and was assigned to Judge Michael Liburdi, an appointee of President Donald Trump (R).

California

A.A. v. Newsom: On March 17, 2021, a San Diego County judge temporarily blocked the enforcement of various school reopening provisions across California after a group of parents of public-school children filed suit. Under the state's school reopening plan, middle and high schools located in "purple" counties (i.e., counties with between 7 and 10 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 residents) were prohibited from reopening. The plaintiffs also challenged the plan's requirement that reopened schools maintain at least four feet between students in classrooms. The plaintiffs argued that these provisions violated California’s constitutional and statutory guarantees of a quality education, education equality, separation of powers, and due process. In her order, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Cynthia Freeland sided with the plaintiffs, calling the state's school reopening plan "selective in its applicability, vague in its terms, and arbitrary in its prescriptions." In response to Freeland's order, California Health and Human Services Agency spokesman Rodger Butler said that the state would "continue to lead with science and health as we review this order and assess our legal options with a focus on the health and safety of California’s children and schools." Scott Davidson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, called the ruling "a huge validation of our position that remote learning is a failure, that education is a constitutional right and that these kids have been denied their right to an education with remote learning."

Barnes v. Ahlman: On August 5, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States stayed a district court order requiring Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes to implement multiple COVID-19 safety precautions at the county jail, pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The stay application was filed on an emergency basis and referred to the full court by Justice Elena Kagan. In a 5-4 opinion, the court halted implementation of the lower court order, which would have mandated fourteen health and safety requirements, including increased inmate access to testing, hand sanitizer, and other disinfectants; mandatory staff use of personal protective equipment; daily access to showers and laundry services; and appropriate access to medical care. The court's decision did not include a rationale, as is common in the case of emergency petitions. Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan wrote that they would not have granted the stay. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissent, which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined. Sotomayor wrote, "Despite knowing the severe threat posed by COVID–19 and contrary to its own apparent policies, the jail exposed its inmates to significant risks from a highly contagious and potentially deadly disease." Reacting to the decision, an attorney for the inmates said, "[As] the courts delay and abdicate their responsibility to enforce the Constitution, our clients are exposed to serious risks of illness and death." Barnes made no public comment in immediate aftermath of the decision. The case returned to the Ninth Circuit on appeal.

Brandy et al v. Newsom et al: On March 27, 2020, the National Rifle Association and several other advocacy groups filed suit against Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) after the governor's stay-at-home order closed gun stores statewide. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

On March 19, Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20, which directed individuals in California to stay home except as needed to maintain essential critical infrastructure. The shelter-in-place order did not have a specified end date.

County of Fresno v. Immanuel Schools: On August 25, 2020, California Superior Court Judge D. Tyler Tharpe denied a request by Fresno County health officials to temporarily bar in-class instruction at a private Christian school, Immanuel Schools, pending a decision on the merits. The county's lawsuit sought to block the school from hosting in-person classes. In its complaint, Fresno County argued that the school’s reopening would violate state and local public health orders and constitute a public nuisance, noting that in-person class instruction presents "an immediate and serious threat to the health and safety of the students, parents, teachers and staff at Immanuel Schools,” as well as to "the surrounding area, which includes many of the vulnerable agricultural worker populations that are being heavily affected by the COVID-19 virus." Ruling from the bench, Tharpe refused to issue a temporary restraining order, finding that the county had failed to "make an affirmative factual showing and a declaration pertaining competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger or any other steps or a basis" for blocking the school’s actions. Soon after Tharpe’s order, the school released a statement: "We know today’s decision is not permanent. Therefore, we will continue our legal efforts defending our rights to remain open." Daniel Cederborg, attorney for the county, also reacted to the decision, saying that, while the judge appeared to be "impressed with the schools’ opening plan," the decision "doesn’t show anything about the merits of the case."

County of Ventura v. Godspeak Calvary Chapel: On August 5, 2020, officials representing Ventura County, California, filed suit in Ventura County Superior Court against a local pastor, Rob McCoy, and his church for alleged violations of state and local COVID-19 health orders. In its complaint, the county sought a court order prohibiting McCoy, the church, and its congregants from "conducting, participating in, or attending any indoor services" and further prohibiting outdoor services unless the defendants fully comply with existing state and local health orders. The county's action followed complaints of various violations by the church, and media statements by McCoy that services included "singing, hugging, no masks." The suit alleged that, absent court intervention, the church’s actions "will cause and continue to cause great and irreparable injury to the general public ... including hospitalizations and deaths, which in turn is likely to result in continued and further restrictions on businesses and other operations and activities." McCoy said, "We grieve for the people that we've lost in our county, we don't make light of that, but to use that statistic and shutter all businesses, and then close churches ... what is the point of that?"

Criswell v. Boudreaux: On July 29, 2020, a group of individuals incarcerated at the Tulare County Jails sued Sheriff Michael Boudreaux in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, seeking the implementation of an array of COVID-19 safety measures. The plaintiffs asked that the court issue an order directing Boudreaux to provide universal staff and inmate COVID-19 testing, release medically vulnerable inmates posing a low flight-risk, provide (and require staff to wear) personal protection equipment, allow attorney access to incarcerated clients, and quarantine those exposed to the novel coronavirus. The plaintiffs argued that Boudreaux had "actively interfered with incarcerated people’s ability to protect themselves" by failing to implement CDC-recommended virus response measures, thereby unconstitutionally subjecting the plaintiffs to "imminent danger of serious illness or death from the virus." Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed that Boudreaux "has prevented incarcerated people from engaging in confidential attorney visits" by designing a visitation policy that frustrates "efforts to meet confidentially with civil rights attorneys about the appalling conditions in the jail." The plaintiffs alleged that Boudreaux’s actions violated the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In a statement, Boudreaux contested these allegations, saying, "We are doing everything that we can with the information and tools available to us to keep our inmates safe and healthy."

Flores v. Barr: On June 26, 2020, Judge Dolly Gee, of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to transfer migrant children held at ICE Family Residential Centers (FRCs) to their families or sponsors by July 17, 2020. The order came as the result of a complaint filed on March 26, 2020, in which the plaintiffs, representing detained minors in a longstanding class action, alleged that continued detention of the minors "in congregate detention facilities in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic and public health national emergency" violated the Flores settlement. The Flores settlement is a 1997 court-supervised stipulated settlement agreement which governs the detention conditions and treatment of noncitizen migrant children held in federal custody. Gee’s order was limited to minors held at FRCs for more than 20 days. It provided that removal "shall be undertaken with all deliberate speed." The order went on to state that, prior to removal, "ICE shall urgently enforce its existing COVID-19 protocols," including social distancing, masking, and enhanced testing at all detention centers. Gee had previously ordered the federal government, on April 24, 2020, to "continue to make every effort to promptly and safely release" the minors, an order ICE appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 23, 2020.

Gateway City Church v. Newsom: On February 26, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a California county to cease enforcement of heightened restrictions on religious gatherings, finding that these restrictions violated an earlier ruling that struck down Governor Gavin Newsom’s (D) prohibition against indoor church services. The case originated in Santa Clara County, which disallowed all indoor gatherings, including worship services, while allowing religious and secular establishments to operate at 20 percent capacity for all other purposes. Petitioners sought review from the Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit preliminarily affirmed that the county's restriction did not violate the First Amendment. The Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs, finding that the "outcome is clearly dictated by this court's decision in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom." While the order was unsigned, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Associate Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented, pointing to her reasoning in South Bay. Santa Clara County Counsel James R. Williams said that the order was "issued without any analysis at all of the county's gathering rules, which have always been neutral and applied equally to all gatherings across-the-board."

Grace Community Church of the Valley v. Los Angeles County: On August 15, 2020, a three-judge panel of the California Second District Court of Appeal stayed a lower court order, which would have allowed a Los Angeles County church to hold indoor services, despite state and county COVID-19 restrictions. The appellate court stayed Judge James Chalfant’s temporary restraining order, which would have permitted the church to offer indoor services coupled with social distancing and face coverings. The appellate court found that the balance "between the harm that flows from the heightened risk of transmitting COVID-19 ... and the harm that flows from having to conduct religious services outdoors instead of indoors" favored the issuance of a stay. The church pastor, John MacArthur, conducted indoor services the day after the appellate court issued the stay, prompting Los Angeles County to file a motion in the lower court, asking that the church, parishioners who attended indoor services, and MacArthur be held in contempt of court and sanctioned a total of $20,000 in fines. At an August 20, 2020, hearing, Superior Court Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff declined to issue a final written decision regarding the sanctions, with the two parties disagreeing on his oral findings. Attorneys for the church indicated that Beckloff had ruled in the church’s favor: "There is no court order prohibiting Pastor John MacArthur and Grace Community Church from holding indoor worship services." Meanwhile, county officials said in a statement that they were "grateful that the court recognized the vital importance of our health officer orders in protecting the public health and continue to seek an opportunity to work with Grace Community Church to bring its services into compliance."

Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom: On July 17, 2020, a group of California churches filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeking an injunction against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) COVID-19 restrictions on indoor worship services. In their complaint, the churches challenged Executive Order N-33-20, Public Health Guidance, and Guidance for Places of Worship, arguing that these policies unconstitutionally restricted gatherings for indoor services and home Bible study. Under these policies, in-person services were permitted only if certain measures, including social distancing and use of masks, were followed. Attendance was limited to 25 percent of building capacity with a maximum of 100 attendees. Additionally, guidance suggested that indoor singing and chanting be discontinued, as these present "increased likelihood for transmission [of Covid-19] from contaminated exhaled droplets." According to the churches, these restrictions violated their rights to freedom of assembly, speech, and free exercise of religion. The churches sought a court order "preventing plaintiffs, their pastors, and their congregants from being subject to criminal sanctions for participating in indoor worship services this Sunday, or singing or chanting therein, during which plaintiffs will implement social distancing and hygiene protections on an equal basis with permitted non-religious gatherings." The case was assigned to John F. Walter, an appointee of George W. Bush (R).

Looney v. Newsom: On September 11, 2020, a group of parents filed suit in Shasta County Superior Court against California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) and other state and local school officials, seeking to open schools for full-time in-person instruction. The parents, whose children attended public schools following hybrid schedules that mixed on-campus and distance learning, argued that these instruction methods constituted various violations of the California Constitution. The plaintiffs alleged that the hybrid model violated the "right to basic educational equality" and "led to substantial disparities in the quality and availability of opportunities." The plaintiffs also contended that Newsom’s emergency actions, and the statutory authority granting him the discretion to issue such actions, were impermissible violations of the California Constitution. They argued that "the legislature cannot delegate legislative power to the Governor or executive branch to restrict civil liberties" absent distinct limitations not included in the challenged actions. Newsom and the other defendants had not commented publicly on the suit as of September 18, 2020. The case was assigned to Judge Stephen H. Baker.

South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. v. Newsom: On May 29, 2020, the United States Supreme Court rejected a challenge to California's religious gathering limits, which order attendance in churches or places of worship to a maximum of 25% or 100 attendees. The 5-4 decision was joined by Chief Justice Roberts who warned against intervening in emergencies: "Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an 'unelected federal judiciary,' which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people." Justice Kavanaugh joined the remaining three Republican-appointed justices in dissenting from the ruling, arguing that the California limits "indisputably discriminates against religion."

Tandon v. Newsom: On April 9, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down California’s prohibition against religious gatherings of people from more than three households. In its unsigned decision, the Supreme Court found that "California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise." The Supreme Court also ruled that the state had not explained "why it could not safely permit at-home worshipers to gather in larger numbers while using precautions used in secular activities." Citing its earlier decision lifting New York’s attendance limits on places of worship, the Supreme Court ruled that California had "not shown that 'public health would be imperiled' by employing less restrictive measures." Although the decision was unsigned, Chief Justice John Roberts said he would have denied the application. Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent, joined by Associate Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Kagan wrote, "California limits religious gatherings in homes to three households. If the State also limits all secular gatherings in homes to three households, it has complied with the First Amendment. And the State does exactly that[.]"

Colorado

Neville v. Polis: On August 28, 2020, the Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge against more than three dozen executive orders issued by Gov. Jared Polis (D), including a statewide mask mandate. The denial, which was announced via Twitter by a court spokesman, came two days after the case was filed by Colorado House Minority Leader Patrick Neville (R) and activist Michelle Malkin. In their complaint, Neville and Malkin argued that the Colorado Disaster Emergency Act, which provides the governor with expanded powers during an emergency, represented an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine: "[The] chief executive by executive order is purportedly making new laws and implementing new public policies which wholly usurp the power of the legislative department to make the laws, a power which has been delegated by the People through their Colorado Constitution exclusively to the legislative department." The plaintiffs argued that the various emergency actions taken by Polis, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and the El Paso and Denver health departments resulted in "unjust injury to [their] fundamental civil rights, liberty interests, and property rights." After the suit was filed, Polis said, "We are free to be on the side of a deadly virus that has taken the lives of too many friends, parents, and loved ones, or on the side of Coloradans. I’m on the side of Coloradans." The plaintiffs said they intended to re-file in the trial court for Denver County.

Andrew Wommack Ministries, Inc. v. Polis: On September 29, 2020, Judge Christine Arguello, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, declined to enjoin Gov. Jared Polis' restrictions on religious gatherings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to take up an appeal of Arguello's decision. In its complaint, Andrew Wommack Ministries argued that Polis' orders infringed upon the church’s "constitutional rights by discrimination against its right to assembly, speech, free exercise of religion, [and] equal protection." The complaint was filed after the church received a cease-and-desist order in response to hosting a conference event exceeding the 175-person limit for indoor events. In her order, Arguello, a George W. Bush (R) appointee, wrote that allowing such large indoor gatherings "would be compromising the health of the public, which could cause the death of an untold number of innocent citizens." On Sept. 29, Andrew Wommack Ministries appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On Oct. 5, the Tenth Circuit declined to take up the appeal, finding that Andrew Wommack Ministries "has not made a sufficient showing that it is likely to succeed on appeal as to merit the requested relief."

Connecticut

Auracle Homes, LLC v. Lamont: On June 16, 2020, a group of eight Connecticut landlords sued Governor Ned Lamont (D) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking to block two executive orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Executive Order 7G, issued on March 19, suspends non-critical court operations. Executive Order 7X, issued on April 10, prohibits landlords from initiating new evictions through July 1, provides an automatic 60-day grace period for April rent (and a 60-day grace period for May rent upon request), and mandates that landlords allow tenants who paid a security deposit in excess of one month’s rent be allowed to use that excess amount toward April, May, or June rent. The landlords argue in their complaint that these executive orders "illegally deprived them of their constitutional right to private contract, right to due process of law, right to equal protection under the law, and right against having their property taken for public use without just compensation." Connecticut Attorney General William Tong defended the executive orders, stating they "have been very clearly constitutional and fully legally justified." The case was assigned to Judge Victor Allen Bolden.

District of Columbia

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Bowser: On Dec. 11, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington filed a lawsuit challenging Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser's (D) November restrictions limiting religious services to 50 people. In its complaint, the Archdiocese said the restrictions were “unscientific, in that they bear no relation to either the size of the building or the safety of the activity targeted.” The Archdiocese further alleged Mayor Bowser’s “restrictions are discriminatory, in that they single out religious worship as a disfavored activity, even though it has been proven safer than many other activities the District favors.” The Archdiocese asserted the restrictions constitute violations of their parishioners’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Starting Dec. 17, Mayor Bowser temporarily eased indoor worship restrictions for the holidays, allowing religious gatherings of up to 25% of a church’s capacity, up to a maximum of 250 people indoors. In the Mayor’s order modifying restrictions, officials said the Archdiocese’s lawsuit “flies in the face of all scientific and medical advice and will doubtlessly put parishioners in harm’s way.” The case is before Judge Trevor McFadden, an appointee of President Donald Trump (R)

Capitol Hill Baptist Church v. Bowser: On September 22, 2020, a Washington, D.C. church filed suit against Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In its complaint, the church challenged ongoing restrictions on physical gatherings in the District, and sought the right to "gather for corporate worship free from threat of governmental sanction." The church argued that the restrictions on places of worship violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; the church's First Amendment rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, and freedom of assembly; and its Fifth Amendment rights to freedom from governmental deprivation of liberty without due process of law and equal protection. Rev. Thomas Bowen, director of Bowser's Office of Religious Affairs, responded to the suit in a statement, saying that the pandemic "has placed us all in a tough situation, leading us to make adjustments to all aspects of our lives." The case was assigned to Trevor McFadden, an appointee of President Donald Trump (R).

Florida

Power v. Leon County: On July 10, 2020, Judge John Cooper, of Florida’s Second Judicial Circuit Court, denied a motion to enjoin Leon County’s mask ordinance. The lawsuit, one of nine filed by attorney and state Representative Anthony Sabatini (R) on behalf of plaintiffs across the state, challenged the constitutionality of Leon County’s Emergency Ordinance 20-15, enacted on June 23, 2020, as a response to COVID-19. The ordinance required that individuals wear face coverings while inside public businesses to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. The plaintiff, a Leon County resident and business owner, argued in his complaint that the ordinance violated guarantees of privacy, due process, religious freedom, and equal protection under the Florida Constitution. Cooper dismissed arguments that the ordinance was impermissibly vague and found the science justifying the ordinance convincing, stating, "If people are going to go into businesses and spread it all over the place, then about the only thing available is a face mask." Sabatini, who filed similar lawsuits against Martin, Miami-Dade, Seminole, Orange, and Hillsborough counties, as well as the cities of St. Augustine, DeLand, and Jacksonville, indicated an appeal would be filed in the First District Court of Appeal.

Florida Education Association v. DeSantis: On August 3, 2020, the Florida Education Association, the state's largest teachers' union, filed an emergency motion requesting a status conference in its case against Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and the Florida Commission of Education. The union sought to block a state order that, it argued, mandated that schools physically reopen five days a week or lose critical funding. In response, Judge Spencer Eig, of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, set a hearing for August 6, 2020, in which he was expected to rule on whether the suit was in the proper court. In its original complaint, the union argued that the state's emergency order to reopen physical school classrooms "imposes mandates that make it impossible to comply with CDC guidelines on physical distancing, hygiene, and sanitation." The union further argued that the order "comes with severe pressure” to physically reopen schools, as only those schools with state-approved reopening plans would be granted flexibility on student enrollment reporting, including funding based on pre-COVID full-time enrollment forecasts. According to the union, the state order violated Article IX, Section 1(a), of the Florida Constitution, which mandated safety and security in public schools. The union also alleged that the order was an "unreasonable, inconsistent, and arbitrary and capricious" deprivation of the plaintiffs’ due process rights. The union therefore sought an "injunction to prohibit all named defendants from taking actions to unconstitutionally force millions of public school students and employees to report to brick and mortar schools that should remain closed during the resurgence of COVID-19 cases." An attorney representing DeSantis said that if the case was not transferred to a different court, they would file an appeal.

Tillis v. Manatee County: On August 2, 2020, a lawsuit seeking to enjoin Manatee County’s mask mandate was filed in Florida’s Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court. The lawsuit, filed by attorney and Florida State Representative Anthony Sabatini (R), challenged the constitutionality of Manatee County’s Resolution No. R-20-116. The resolution, adopted on July 27, 2020, required individuals to wear face coverings while inside public businesses to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus. In his complaint, the plaintiff, a Manatee County resident and pastor of a local Baptist church, argued that the mask mandate violated his religious freedom and "should not apply within churches, synagogues and other houses of worship because it interferes with the ability to pray." The plaintiff also alleged that the mask mandate violated guarantees of privacy and due process under the Florida Constitution, arguing it was impermissibly vague and overbroad, could lead to public disclosure of private medical information, and was an arbitrary and unreasonable deprivation of liberty. Sabatini filed similar lawsuits against Broward, Martin, Miami-Dade, Seminole, Orange, Leon, Pinellas, Collier, and Hillsborough counties, as well as the cities of St. Augustine, Key West, DeLand, and Jacksonville.

Florida Education Association v. DeSantis: On August 24, 2020, Judge Charles W. Dodson, of Florida’s Second Circuit Court for Leon County, blocked an emergency order requiring that school districts physically open their schools or risk state funding. Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran issued the emergency order. The decision stemmed from two lawsuits, combined by the court, which alleged that the order violated the Florida Constitution. The plaintiffs, including the Florida Education Association, claimed that the order pressured school districts to physically reopen schools, as only those schools with state-approved reopening plans would be granted flexibility on student enrollment reporting, effectively losing state funding for students attending school online instead of on campus. Dodson found the order "unconstitutional to the extent it arbitrarily disregards safety, denies local school boards decision making with respect to reopening brick and mortar schools, and conditions funding on an approved reopening plan with a start date in August." Dodson ruled that "the day-to-day decision to open or close a school must always rest locally with the board or executive most closely associated with a school.". The state filed an appeal with Florida’s First District Court of Appeal, which automatically stayed Dodson’s order. In turn, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to dismiss that stay, with FEA president Fedrick Ingram saying, "Shame on a Commissioner of Education who would spend taxpayer dollars to try and reinvent some kind of privileged defense when you already have been proven that you are wrong." Corcoran countered in a statement, saying he was "100% confident we will win this lawsuit."

Levine v. School District of Palm Beach County: On September 28, 2020, Judge Glenn Kelley, of the Palm Beach County Circuit Court, refused a request by local teachers seeking to transition students to distance learning. In their complaint, the group of local teachers argued that Palm Beach County’s school district reopening plan arbitrarily and capriciously denied "students, public school staff, their family members, and the public with whom they come in contact within the public-school system their basic human needs for health and safety," in violation of the Florida Constitution. In his order, Kelley wrote that, while he "is not unsympathetic to the safety concerns demonstrated by the Plaintiffs," he was unable to "second guess the plan developed and implemented by the School Board" Kelley said that "the Court simply cannot, and should not, determine the wisdom of public policy." The school district said the following in a statement: "The School District of Palm Beach County appreciates and respects Judge Kelley's very thoughtful decision in upholding the School Board's Reopening Plan." As of October 1, 2020, the plaintiffs had not publicly indicated whether they would appeal.

State of Florida ex rel. Jackson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.: On October 15, 2020, Judge Edward Scott, of Florida’s Marion County Circuit Court, declined to block President Donald Trump (R) from holding a campaign rally at the Ocala International Airport on October 16, 2020. Chanae Jackson, a Marion County resident whose two teenage children had been diagnosed with Covid-19, filed suit against Trump's campaign on October 14, 2020, arguing that "her family cannot afford to experience Covid-19 again." Jackson alleged that "Trump’s appearance while infected – in defiance of his own experts’ guidance – will embolden hundreds of his supporters to attend unmasked and undistanced." In his ruling, Scott found that Jackson had failed to meet the standard for issuance of an injunction, writing that "a prospective injury must be more than a remote possibility." Trump’s campaign did not comment on the lawsuit, and the event was scheduled to proceed as planned.

Broward Teachers Union v. Broward County Public Schools: On January 7, 2021, the teachers' union for the Broward County Public Schools filed suit in the Broward County Circuit Court, challenging a school district mandate that staff return to physical classrooms. In its complaint, the Broward Teachers Union alleged that the district's "actions in the midst of a global pandemic put the lives of hundreds of educators at unnecessary and avoidable risk," in violation of Article I, Section 9, of the Florida Constitution. The union further argued that the district's mandate was an arbitrary and capricious state action, claiming it "has no rational basis and its implementation is completely unpredictable." In a statement to the media, union president Anna Fusco said, "The district must immediately stop playing this deadly bureaucratic game with our medically compromised educators." Broward County Public Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie countered, saying, "Schools are not sources of secondary transmission of the coronavirus." The suit was assigned to Judge Martin J. Bidwill.

Florida v. Becerra: On June 18, 2021, Judge Steven Merryday, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, temporarily suspended cruise industry restrictions issued by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC). The CDC’s challenged provisions established testing, vaccination, quarantine and isolation, and social distancing requirements. In its complaint, the state of Florida argued that the "CDC does not have the authority to issue year-and-a-half-long nationwide lockdowns of entire industries," adding that "even if it did, its actions here are arbitrary and capricious." Merryday, a George H.W. Bush (R) appointee, sided with Florida, finding that the CDC had exceeded its authority: "Never has CDC implemented measures as extensive, disabling and exclusive as those under review in this action." Under the terms of Merryday's ruling, the CDC’s restrictions were set to become guidance after July 18, 2021. Merryday gave the CDC until July 2, 2021, to propose narrower restrictions.

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. v. Rivkees: On July 13, 2021, Norwegian Cruise Line’s holding company sued Florida’s surgeon general, challenging the state’s ban against businesses asking for proof of COVID-19 vaccination. In the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the cruise line argued that Florida’s “vaccine passport” prohibition was both preempted by federal law and unconstitutional. The cruise line argued that the law, which imposed fines up to $5,000 per violation against businesses requiring proof of vaccination, would force the cruise line to be "either on the wrong side of health and safety and the operative federal legal framework, or else on the wrong side of Florida law." The cruise line further argued that Florida’s law "blocks communications between a business and its customers, in violation of the First Amendment,” and violated the substantive due process rights of the company, its employees, and its customers. The cruise line asked the court to grant a preliminary injunction allowing it to resume sailing with its CDC-compliant safety protocols in place and to invalidate the Florida statute. The case was assigned to Judge Kathleen M. Williams, an appointee of Barack Obama (D).

McCarthy v. DeSantis: On August 27, 2021, Leon County Circuit Court Judge John Cooper temporarily suspended Florida's prohibition against local mask mandates. In their complaint, a group of parents claimed that Gov. Ron DeSantis’ (R) executive order barring school districts from mandating masks violated the Florida Constitution. The plaintiffs alleged that their children were "wrongfully being denied safe schools" by the mask ban. The plaintiffs further alleged that DeSantis’ order made "arbitrary and capricious demands on public schools," attempted to "usurp the mandate of the Florida Department of Health," and would "cause further spread of the virus" by unconstitutionally stripping the right to home rule from local school boards. Cooper found that DeSantis had "overstepped his authority," reasoning that, in light of scientific evidence, school district face mask policies were "reasonable and consistent." Cooper also found that, contrary to DeSantis’ contentions, local school district mask mandates did not violate the Florida Parents’ Bill of Rights, a statute signed into law on June 29, 2021. Instead, Cooper determined that DeSantis’ order violated the statute. Taryn Fenske, DeSantis' communications director, said DeSantis planned to appeal the decision.

Georgia

Kemp v. Bottoms: On July 16, 2020, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) sued Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms (D) and members of the Atlanta City Council, seeking to have the Superior Court of Fulton County invalidate and enjoin enforcement of local orders related to COVID-19. These orders mandated that people wear face coverings inside all businesses and restricted the number of individuals who could congregate on city property, requirements that went beyond those imposed by the state. Kemp’s complaint argued that Atlanta "may only exercise the powers delegated to it by the state, and Mayor Bottoms' attempts to exercise an undelegated power against the state are" beyond her legal authority. Kemp also claimed that Georgia law provided him "the power to suspend municipal orders that are contradictory to any state law or to his executive orders." Kemp asked the court to invalidate the orders. Bottoms responded to the suit on Twitter: "3104 Georgians have died and I and my family are amongst the 106k who have tested positive for COVID-19," adding that "[a] better use of taxpayer money would be to expand testing and contact tracing."

On August 13, 2020, Kemp withdrew the lawsuit. On August 15, 2020, Kemp issued an executive order authorizing any city or county government to implement mask mandates on government-owned property. The order also authorized localities meeting a specified COVID-19 prevalence threshold (at least 100 cases per 100,000 people for the preceding 14-day period) to implement broader mask mandates.

Brown v. Azar: On September 8, 2020, a landlord filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the nationwide eviction moratorium issued by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The moratorium temporarily halted residential evictions for most renters in order "to prevent the further spread of COVID-19." In his complaint, plaintiff and landlord Rick Brown argued that the CDC moratorium, if enforced, "would abrogate the right to access the courts, violate limits on the Supremacy Clause, implicate the nondelegation doctrine, and traduce anti-commandeering principles." Brown contended that the CDC unconstitutionally "displaces inherent state authority over residential evictions" and "impermissibly commandeers state courts and state officers" to enforce the emergency moratorium. The CDC had not commented publicly on the suit, as of September 9, 2020.

Georgia Association of Educators v. Kemp: On October 8, 2020, the Georgia Association of Educators (GAE), the state's largest teachers' union, sued Governor Brian Kemp (R) and other state officials in the Fulton County Superior Court, seeking a court order that would require the state to issue statewide school reopening plans "reasonably calculated to ensure that schools operate safely in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and consistent with the guidelines issued by recognized public health authorities such as the CDC." The GAE alleged that Kemp's delegation of reopening protocols to local districts constituted a failure to provide an adequate public education as required under the Georgia Constitution. In response to the lawsuit, Georgia State Superintendent Richard Woods, who was also named as a defendant, defended the state's approach to reopening schools, saying, "Unlike several states, Georgia schools retain the authority to remain fully virtual instead of being required to offer in-person instruction."

Idaho

Chew v. Bedke: On January 7, 2021, two Idaho state lawmakers filed suit against Idaho House of Representatives Speaker Scott Bedke (R), alleging that the absence of COVID-19 safety measures at the state capitol constituted a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The plaintiffs were Representatives Sue Chew (D) and Muffy Davis (D), both of whom were at greater risk of serious danger from COVID-19 due to pre-existing medical conditions. They sought "accommodations, including remote participation and a self-contained office if the legislature leadership and Governor aren’t going to reasonably institute COVID-19 protections and control those with bad intentions who enter our Capitol." Bedke responded to the suit, saying, "Though it's unfortunate that negotiations have taken this turn, I will continue to move forward in good faith toward a solution workable for all members." The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.

Illinois

Bailey v. Pritzker: On April 27, 2020, Clay County Circuit Court Judge Michael McHaney granted a restraining order against Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s (D) 30-day extension of the state’s stay-at-home order. According to CBS News Chicago, the restraining order applies only to the plaintiff in the case, state Rep. Darren Bailey (R). This means that Bailey does not have to follow the order past its prior expiration date. The order also gives other state residents the opportunity to join in the lawsuit or file their own. Pritzker said he would appeal the ruling. Pritzker appealed the order.

Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker: On May 16, 2020, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied a motion for a temporary stay against Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s (D) Executive Order 2020-32, which generally barred gatherings of more than 10 people, including religious gatherings. In an unsigned order, the panel wrote, "The Executive Order does not discriminate against religious activities, nor does it show hostility toward religion. It appears instead to impose neutral and generally applicable rules."

The panel did grant the plaintiffs' motion for an expedited appeal. The suit originated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs, Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church and Logos Baptist Ministries, alleged that the governor's order violated their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. They motioned for an injunction barring enforcement of the order. On May 13, 2020, Judge Robert Gettleman rejected the motion, writing in his order, "Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction, and their blatant refusal to follow the mandates of the Order are both ill-founded and selfish. An injunction would risk the lives of plaintiffs’ congregants, as well as the lives of their family members, friends, co-workers and other members of their communities with whom they come in contact. Their interest in communal services cannot and does not outweigh the health and safety of the public."

Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker: On June 15, 2020, the Illinois Republican Party, together with three local Republican groups, filed suit against Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In their complaint, Republicans argued that their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated because, "unlike churches, political parties are barred from gathering in groups greater than 10 under the Governor’s Executive Order 2020-38." Republicans said that "[w]hen the state grants access to one set of speakers, it must give equal access and treatment to all speakers of a similar character," contrasting their treatment to both that of churches and protesters. They have asked the court to enjoin the state from enforcing Executive Order 2020-38 against political parties. Pritzker’s spokeswoman, Jordan Abudayyeh, said, "[As] the Republicans who attended protests against the public health guidance are well aware, the State has never prevented people from exercising their First Amendment rights."

On July 2, 2020, Judge Sara Lee Ellis, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, denied Republicans' motion for an injunction against the gathering-size restriction (which was subsequently raised to 50 people). Republicans appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On Sept. 3, a three-judge panel rejected the appeal, finding that precedent "does not compel the Governor to treat all gatherings alike." The panel further concluded that "free exercise of religion enjoys express constitutional protection, and the Governor was entitled to carve out some room for religion, even while he declined to do so for other activities." Finally, the court emphasized that re-subjecting religious gatherings to the mandatory cap would "leave the Republicans no better off than they are today." Chief Judge Diane Wood and Judges Amy St. Eve and Amy Coney Barrett sat on the panel and were unanimous in their decision.

Daniel Suhr, counsel for the Republican Party, said in a statement, "We are disappointed in the decision, respectfully disagree with it, and are considering our options."

Pritzker v. Board of Education of Hutsonville CUSD #1: On July 16, 2020, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) filed suit in Sangamon County Circuit Court against three schools that had announced their refusal to comply with mandatory COVID-19 health and safety protocols for students and faculty returning to the classroom in the fall. At issue in the case were Executive Order 2020-05, which closed schools across the state, and Executive Orders 2020-40 and 2020-44, which allowed schools to resume in-person instruction subject to public health directives issued by Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE). IDPH and ISBE guidance stipulated that public and nonpublic schools implement certain health and safety measures before reopening. This included a requirement that individuals in school facilities wear face coverings. The preemptive suit came after the defendants, a public school district and two private schools, informed the state that they would not abide by the guidance, arguing that it "is unlawful, is arbitrary and unreasonable, and was issued without legal authority." Pritzker countered in his complaint that the Illinois Constitution and the Emergency Management Act provided him emergency powers during disasters, and thus formed a legal basis for his school guidance. Pritzker’s suit sought a judicial declaration confirming the legality of his executive orders and the reopening guidance, as well as injunctive relief requiring that the three schools cease their refusal to comply with the orders and guidance.

Indiana

Holcomb v. Bray: On April 30, 2020, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) filed a motion to strike a lawsuit brought by Governor Eric Holcomb (R) against the Indiana General Assembly. Holcomb filed the lawsuit after state lawmakers overrode his veto of HEA1123, which gave the General Assembly the authority to convene emergency legislative sessions when the governor has declared a state of emergency. Holcomb argued that the General Assembly "impermissibly attempted," through HEA1123, to usurp "power given exclusively to the governor under Article 4 § 9 of the Indiana Constitution" in order to curb his COVID-19 public safety orders and gubernatorial orders issued during future states of emergency. Meanwhile, Rokita asserted that, under state law, "the Indiana Attorney General alone holds the authority to represent the state, state agencies, or state officials acting in their official capacities.” In a press statement, Holcomb said, "This filing is about the future of the executive branch and all the governors who will serve long after I’m gone." Rokita said that allowing Holcomb's lawsuit to proceed would "fracture foundational legal principles" and work against the "broader interests of the state and the will of the people." The case was filed in Marion County Superior Court.

Klaassen v. The Trustees of Indiana University: On June 21, 2021, a group of current and incoming Indiana University (IU) students sued the school, challenging its COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The mandate required that non-exempt students, staff, and faculty be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 before the beginning of the fall semester. According to IU, non-exempt students refusing vaccination would have their class registrations cancelled and would be barred from participating in any on-campus activities. IU recognized certain medical, religious, and online student exemptions. The plaintiffs argued that IU's mandate violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to bodily integrity and refusal of medical treatment. The students further contended that the university was violating state law, arguing that "state and local units are prohibited from requiring or issuing vaccine 'passports' that indicate an individual’s COVID immunization status." James Bopp Jr., lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said, "They're suing because they're being stripped of their constitutional rights to make medical treatment decisions for themselves and to protect their own bodily integrity." Chuck Carney, an IU spokesman, said, "The university is confident it will prevail in this case." The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana and was assigned to Judge Damon R. Leichty, an appointee of President Donald Trump (R).

Kansas

Kelly v. Legislative Coordinating Council: On April 9, 2020, Gov. Laura Kelly (D) filed a lawsuit against the Legislative Coordinating Council, which is a seven-member group made up of the state's legislative leaders from both parties. On April 8, the council voted 5-2 along party lines to revoke Kelly's executive order limiting religious gatherings to 10 individuals. Senate President Susan Wagle (R), a member of the council, said that the order violated the principles of freedom of religion. Kelly said that the council violated the state constitution and that only the full legislature has the authority to revoke executive orders.

On April 10, the Kansas Supreme Court announced it would convene on April 11 through a video conference to hear arguments in the case. This was the first time in history the court convened on a Saturday. The Kansas Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kelly. The court said that the Legislative Coordinating Council did not have the power to overrule the governor.

Kentucky

On Fire Christian Center, Inc. v. Fischer: On April 10, 2020, On Fire Christian Church filed a lawsuit against Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer. Fischer issued an order on April 7 prohibiting drive-in church services during Easter weekend. U.S. District Judge Justin Walker ruled in favor of the church but said that his ruling did not apply to other churches in the city. Representatives for the church said that they had been hosting drive-in services in their parking lot in order to adhere to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for several weeks. As part of his order, Fischer said he wanted to prevent citizens from driving around town and spreading the virus.

Roberts v. Neace: On May 4, 2020, Judge William Bertelsman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, enjoined the state from enforcing its ban on interstate travel. In his order, Bertelsman wrote, "After careful review, the Court concludes that the Travel Ban does not pass constitutional muster. The restrictions infringe on the basic right of citizens to engage in interstate travel, and they carry with them criminal penalties." Bertelsman rejected a challenge to limits placed on mass gatherings, including church services. Bertelsman wrote, "Plaintiffs are not alone in having their lives and activities disrupted by it and the measures that our federal and state governments have taken to address it. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that there is any American that has not been impacted. But unless a law can be shown to have religion within its cross-hairs, either facially or in application, the fact that religious practices are impinged by it does not contravene the First Amendment."

The suit was brought by Kentucky residents Joseph Roberts, Randall Daniel, and Sally Boyle. Plaintiffs for the attorneys indicated they intended to appeal the portion of Bertelsman's ruling that upheld the state's limits on mass gatherings.

Tabernacle Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear: On May 8, 2020, Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, temporarily blocked the state from enforcing its ban on mass gatherings as applied to religious groups. The plaintiffs had alleged that state orders restricting mass gatherings and closing churches as non-essential businesses violated their First Amendment rights to the freedom of assembly and the free exercise of religion. Tatenhove sided with the plaintiffs, writing the following in his order: "Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to their free exercise claim, and the Court grants their motion for a [temporary restraining order] on that basis. ... To stay the prohibition on mass gatherings with respect to religious services which observe the social distancing guidelines promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control, as Tabernacle has promised to do, does not harm the Defendants. Finally, the public interest favors the enjoinment of a constitutional violation." Tatenhove's full opinion and order can be accessed here.

In a press conference on May 9, 2020, Gov. Andy Beshear (D) did not indicate whether his administration would appeal the decision.

Beshear v. Acree: On November 12, 2020, the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld Governor Andy Beshear’s (D) COVID-19 emergency orders. Writing on behalf of a unanimous court, Justice Lisabeth Tabor Hughes said, "The governor’s orders were, and continue to be, necessary to slow the spread of COVID-19 and protect the health and safety of all Kentucky citizens." The court ruled that Beshear's actions were "consistent with decades of Kentucky precedent, which we will not overturn." In response to the ruling, Beshear said he was "grateful not for a win but for the safety of Kentuckians." Kentucky House Speaker David Osborne (R) said, "It appears that the court’s opinion provides further evidence of the great need to better define emergency powers granted by previous legislatures."

The orders' challengers, three Northern Kentucky businesses, had argued that the governor's orders, including a statewide mask mandate and indoor occupancy restrictions, violated the state constitution and statutory rulemaking procedures. Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R) intervened on behalf of the plaintiffs. Boone County Circuit Court Judge Rick A. Brueggemann granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of the orders. Following a subsequent loss at the appellate level, Beshear appealed to the state supreme court.

Louisiana

4 Aces Enterprises, LLC v. Edwards: On August 17, 2020, Judge Martin Feldman, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, rejected a request by several New Orleans and Houma bar owners to declare Gov. John Bel Edwards’ (D) order closing bars in response to the COVID-19 pandemic unconstitutional. In their complaint, the bar owners challenged sections of Proclamations 89 JBE 2020 and 96 JBE 2020, arguing that the orders unconstitutionally failed to provide a rational basis for distinguishing between bars—which were shuttered—and restaurants that have bars within them, which were allowed to reopen. The bar owners alleged that the orders represented violations of due process, equal protection, and freedom from unlawful takings, under both the U.S. and Louisiana constitutions. In his order, Feldman, an appointee of Ronald Reagan (R), wrote, "Between democratically accountable state officials and a federal court, who decides what measures best protect Louisianans during a global pandemic? The answer is state officials." As a result, Feldman wrote, "the Court is compelled to conclude that Governor Edwards’ ban of on-site consumption of food or drinks at 'bars' bears a 'real or substantial relation' to the goal of slowing the spread of COVID-19 and is not 'beyond all question' a violation of the bar owners’ constitutional rights." Reacting to the decision, Gov. Edwards released a statement: "I am pleased that Judge Feldman upheld bar restrictions, which is one of the critical mitigation measures put in place to slow the spread of COVID-19 in Louisiana to protect and save lives." On August 18, 2020, the bar owners filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Edwards v. Louisiana State Legislature: On October 26, 2020, Governor John Bel Edwards (D) filed suit in the 19th Judicial District Court, challenging a petition by members of the Louisiana House of Representatives that purported to terminate the governor’s public health emergency proclamation and end Covid-19 restrictions in the state, including business occupancy limits, a statewide mask mandate, and guidelines for churches and schools. The petition, signed by 65 of the 73 House Republicans, was initiated under a state law allowing a majority of legislators in either chamber of the state legislature to sign a petition to unilaterally revoke an emergency declaration. After issuing the petition, the House of Representatives released a statement: "The House has exhausted every available legislative remedy and has been left with no other option but to exercise its legislative right to terminate the governor’s emergency order." In his complaint, Edwards alleged that the petition was "an unconstitutional attempt by the members of one house of the Legislature—without bicameral action or presentment to the Governor—to unilaterally prohibit him from exercising his constitutional and statutory authority." Edwards also argued that the actions of the House "caused and will continue to cause confusion in the State of Louisiana regarding the enforceability of the Governor’s proclamation." The governor asked the court to "declare the Petition null, void and unenforceable."

Big Tyme Investments, LLC v. Edwards & 910 E Main, LLC v. Edwards: On January 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld Governor John Bel Edwards' (D) authority to order COVID-19-related bar closures and alcohol restrictions. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the decisions of two lower courts, dismissing arguments that Edwards’ order violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was heard by Circuit Judges James Dennis, a Bill Clinton (D) appointee; Stephen Higginson, a Barack Obama (D) appointee; and Don Willett, Donald Trump (R) appointee. Higginson authored the opinion, and Willett filed a separate concurrence. In response to the decision, Edwards said, "None of the decisions I have made for the past 10 months have been easy, especially when it comes to limiting businesses, and I am pleased that another court has upheld what I have always said: that these orders are completely constitutional, legal and necessary to protect public health." At the time of the ruling, the plaintiffs did not indicate whether they would appeal the decision.

Maine

Does v. Mills: On October 19, 2021, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer declined to suspend Maine’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. The plaintiffs argued that the mandate violated their right, under the First Amendment, to the free exercise of religion because it did not provide for a religious exemption. Chief Judge Jon Levy, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, denied the plaintiffs' earlier request for a temporary restraining order and later refused to grant a preliminary injunction against the mandate. Levy, a Barack Obama (D) appointee, concluded that the plaintiffs had not been “prevented from staying true to their professed religious beliefs,” because they were still able to refuse vaccination, albeit at the risk of being terminated from their jobs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit declined to intervene, prompting the plaintiffs to petition Breyer, the justice assigned to field emergency requests from Maine, to suspend the mandate pending appeal. Later on October 19, the First Circuit affirmed Levy’s decision, finding that "Maine's interest in safeguarding its residents is paramount." The plaintiffs then filed another emergency application with Breyer, seeking an injunction pending a decision by the full Court as to whether to take up the appeal.

Maryland

R.V. v. Mnuchin: On June 19, 2020, Judge Paul Grimm, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, ruled that a group of children, who were U.S. citizens, and their parents, who were not, had standing to sue the Donald Trump (R) administration over the denial of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act benefits. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs sought to "challenge the allegedly intentional and discriminatory denial to U.S. citizen children of the benefits of emergency cash assistance distributed ... in response to the COVID-19 pandemic solely because one or both of a child’s parents are undocumented immigrants." Grimm dismissed the government's argument that, because the children would not directly receive the benefits, the plaintiffs lacked standing to file suit. Instead, Grimm found that each child should be construed as a "qualifying child" under the CARES Act and, "but for the discrimination against them based on their parents’ alienage," would "have the opportunity to benefit from the economic impact payments." As such, Grimm found that the court had proper subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims, the plaintiffs had standing to sue, and the plaintiffs had adequately alleged an equal protection claim. The government was given until July 10, 2020, to file an answer to the plaintiffs' complaint.

Antietam Battlefield KOA v. Hogan: On November 18, 2020, Judge Catherine Blake, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, dismissed a lawsuit over Governor Larry Hogan’s (R) COVID-19 restrictions. In their complaint, the plaintiffs (an array of business owners, religious leaders, state politicians, and other residents) alleged violations of the First Amendment’s prohibition against the establishment of religion, as well as its guarantees of free exercise of religion, freedom of assembly, and free speech. The plaintiffs also argued that Hogan’s actions violated their constitutional rights to equal protection and a republican form of government, as well as the interstate commerce clause and protections against uncompensated takings. In her order granting Hogan’s motion to dismiss, Blake said, "[It] is not the role of the judiciary to second-guess policy choices favoring one reasonable method of preventing the spread of disease over another."

The Arc Maryland v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore: On March 8, 2021, The Arc Maryland, a nonprofit advocacy group for people with disabilities, sued the mayor and city council of Baltimore, along with five Maryland counties, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' publicly available information and vaccine distribution websites omitted people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) as eligible for vaccines under Phase 1B, in violation of state guidance and federal law: "People with I/DD are not aware that they are eligible for the vaccine; are unable to schedule appointments, register, pre-register, or complete interest forms for Defendants’ vaccines; and are delayed or denied access to critical health care services." The plaintiff further contended that this violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. After filing, The Arc Maryland has voluntarily dismissed the mayor and city council of Baltimore as defendants, along with Garrett, Queen Anne’s, and Somerset counties, citing improved COVID-19 vaccination opportunities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The case remained pending against Carroll and Talbot counties. It was assigned to Judge George L. Russell III, an appointee of President Barack Obama (D).

Catchings v. Wilson: On April 15, 2021, state officials in Maryland reached a settlement with detainees of Baltimore's Chesapeake Detention Facility, establishing COVID-19 safety protocols and a vaccination schedule for the prison. In their complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the detainees had sued Warden Calvin Wilson and Robert Green, secretary of Maryland’s Public Safety and Correctional Services (MDPSCS), alleging that inaction on the part of these officials had led to a COVID-19 outbreak at the facility. According to the terms of the settlement, the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services agreed to provide educational materials on COVID-19, enforce mask-wearing and social distancing among staff and inmates, enact sanitization protocols for common areas "in full compliance with CDC guidelines," and "ensure that all detainees/residents, staff, and contracted staff are administered a ... COVID test on a weekly basis." The defendants agreed to institute a policy of isolation and quarantine for residents testing positive, and the Chesapeake Detention Facility agreed to provide COVID-19 vaccines to all detainees and staff by May 1, 2021. John Fowler of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, counsel for the detainees, said, "This settlement is a huge victory that is going to save lives." MDPSCS representative Mark Vernarelli said that the settlement agreement "reinforces the Department’s long-standing commitment to protecting its employees and the incarcerated men and women." The settlement was set to remain in force for 180 days after the conclusion of the state’s COVID-19 emergency.

Massachusetts

CommCan, Inc. vs. Charlie Baker: On April 7, 2020, five cannabis dispensaries and an individual seeking to open a dispensary filed suit against Gov. Charlie Baker (R) after the governor's stay-at-home order declared recreational dispensaries as nonessential businesses. According to the Boston Business Journal, at the time the lawsuit was filed, there were 43 recreational dispensaries employing 8,000 people in the state. The suit was filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court.

On March 23, Baker issued COVID-19 Order No. 13, which directed individuals in the state to stay at home unless performing essential activities and placed restrictions on non-essential businesses. The order was originally set to expire on April 7. On March 31, Baker extended the order through April 4.

Boston Bit Labs, Inc. v. Baker: On September 2, 2020, a gaming arcade filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, against Gov. Charlie Baker (R), challenging Baker's designation of gaming arcades as Phase IV businesses under the state's reopening plan, which stipulated that such businesses could only reopen after a treatment and/or vaccine for COVID-19 was made available. The arcade claimed that this policy constituted a violation of its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and equal protection, respectively. Citing discussions with surrounding states, Baker announced in a September 10, 2020, press briefing that gaming arcades would be designated as Phase III businesses, therefore allowing them to reopen. Reacting to the news, Bit Bar owner Gideon Coltof, said, "I’m certain our lawsuit had something to do with it."

State Police Association of Massachusetts v. Massachusetts: On September 23, 2021, a Massachusetts Superior Court judge rejected a request by the state police union to temporarily suspend Governor Charlie Baker’s (R) COVID-19 vaccine mandate. In its complaint, the State Police Association of Massachusetts (SPAM) argued that the mandate violated state law because Baker failed to engage in collective bargaining with the union prior to issuing the order and left open no "reasonable accommodations" as alternatives to vaccination. In her order, Suffolk County Superior Court Associate Justice Jackie Cowen said that suspending the mandate "would be against the public interest which the [state is] charged with protecting.” Cowen concluded that SPAM had "not identified any irreparable harm its members may suffer if the vaccine policy is not suspended," making suspension "unwarranted for this reason alone." In response to the ruling, SPAM President Michael Cherven said, "It is unfortunate that the Governor and his team have chosen to mandate one of the most stringent vaccine mandates in the country with no reasonable alternatives." Baker said, "it’s very clear to me that the fastest path back to normalcy — the fastest path back to the life everybody wants which is the one they had before the pandemic began — is to get more and more people vaccinated and to continue to build on the success we’ve had here in the Commonwealth."

Michigan

Michigan House of Representatives and Michigan Senate v. Gretchen Whitmer: On May 6, Republicans in the Michigan House and Senate filed a lawsuit challenging Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's (D) emergency declarations issued to combat the novel coronavirus. The emergency declarations have been the source of several executive orders issued by Whitmer in response to the coronavirus pandemic, including the state's stay-at-home order. The lawsuit claims that Whitmer exceeded her authority under two laws that formed the basis of her emergency declaration—the 1976 Emergency Management Act and the 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act.

On May 21, Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Diane Stephens ruled against the Michigan legislature, dismissing the lawsuit. She wrote that Gov. Whitmer exceeded her authority under the 1976 law but not the 1945 law.

On May 22, the Legislature asked the state Supreme Court to take up the case.

On October 2 the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer had no authority to issue or renew executive orders relating to Covid-19 beyond April 30. Justice Markman wrote the majority opinion.

Martinko v. Whitmer: On April 29, 2020, Judge Christopher Murray, of the Michigan Court of Claims, ruled in favor of Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) in a lawsuit over the governor's shelter-in place order. The plaintiffs in the suit alleged that Whitmer exceeded her authority in issuing the stay-at-home order, thereby infringing upon their constitutional rights. They motioned for a temporary order restraining the state from enforcing the order. Murray rejected this motion.

In his opinion and order, Murray wrote, "Although the Court is painfully aware of the difficulties of living under the restrictions of these executive orders, those difficulties are temporary, while to those who contract the virus and cannot recover (and to their family members and friends), it is all too permanent. That is not to say that every new virus will require the action taken here, but given the authority of the Governor to do so in the face of these circumstances, the Court must conclude issuing injunctive relief would not serve the public interest, despite the temporary harm to plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Michigan Department of Health and Human Services v. Karl Manke: A three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals held 2-1 on May 28, 2020, that Michigan barber Karl Manke must close his barbershop to comply with Governor Gretchen Whitmer's (D) Executive Orders 2020-69, which prohibited certain businesses from operating, including “non-essential personal care services.” Manke had reopened his barbershop on May 4, 2020, and a trial court had denied the state's request for a preliminary injunction to close the business.

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed and remanded the lower court's decision on June 5, 2020, holding that the appellate court violated the rule of law by failing to hold a full briefing or oral arguments in the case and by issuing an injunction with a 2-1 decision, rather than the required 3-0 ruling. "It is incumbent on the courts to ensure decisions are made according to the rule of law, not hysteria," wrote Justice David Viviano in the opinion. "One hopes that this great principle—essential to any free society, including ours—will not itself become yet another casualty of COVID-19."

Midwest Institute of Health, PLLC v. Whitmer: On October 2, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion stating that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) did not have authority to issue pandemic-related executive orders that were in effect past April 30, 2020—the date past which the legislature denied extending emergency and disaster declarations. Justice Stephen Markman wrote the majority opinion.

Midwest Institute of Health, PLLC; Wellston Medical Center, PLLC; Primary Health Services, PC; and Jeffery Gulick filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan challenging Executive Order 2020-17. The order, since rescinded, placed restrictions on nonessential medical and dental procedures. Whitmer was able to issue executive orders instituting restrictions amid the pandemic because she declared states of emergency and disaster. She said she had authority to extend those declarations without the legislature's approval based on the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act (EPGA) of 1945 and the Emergency Management Act (EMA) of 1976.

The district court asked the state supreme court to consider two questions: 1) Whether Whitmer had authority under those laws to issue or renew pandemic-related orders after April 30, 2020 (after which the legislature denied renewing declarations of states of emergency or disaster); and 2) Whether either of those laws violated the state Constitution.

Markman wrote for the majority that "the Governor lacked the authority to declare a ‘state of emergency’ or a ‘state of disaster’ under the EMA after April 30, 2020, on the basis of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, we conclude that the EPGA is in violation of the Constitution of our state because it purports to delegate to the executive branch the legislative powers of state government— including its plenary police powers— and to allow the exercise of such powers indefinitely."

The Detroit Free Press's Dave Boucher and Todd Spangler wrote, "The court's opinion throws into question dozens of orders issued by Whitmer related to the coronavirus pandemic, appearing to void them. At the same time, however, since the decision came as a response to questions submitted to the court by a federal judge — and not as part of a state case before it — it wasn't immediately clear what would happen next or when it would take effect."

Whitmer said the following in response to the court's opinion:

“

Today’s Supreme Court ruling, handed down by a narrow majority of Republican justices, is deeply disappointing, and I vehemently disagree with the court’s interpretation of the Michigan Constitution. Right now, every state and the federal government have some form of declared emergency. With this decision, Michigan will become the sole outlier at a time when the Upper Peninsula is experiencing rates of COVID infection not seen in our state since April. It is important to note that this ruling does not take effect for at least 21 days, and until then, my emergency declaration and orders retain the force of law. Furthermore, after 21 days, many of the responsive measures I have put in place to control the spread of the virus will continue under alternative sources of authority that were not at issue in today’s ruling.

”

League of Independent Fitness Facilities and Trainers, Inc. v. Whitmer: On June 24, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted an emergency stay in favor of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), barring indoor gyms from reopening across Michigan due to continued risks associated with COVID-19. Whitmer had appealed a June 19 preliminary injunction issued by Judge Paul Maloney, of U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, which barred enforcement of Executive Order 2020-110, Section 12(b). The executive order closed "indoor gymnasiums, fitness centers, recreation centers, sports facilities, exercise facilities, exercise studios, and the like" in an attempt to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. While Maloney enjoined the executive order, stating that Whitmer had offered "nothing in support of the restriction" nor "any set of facts on which the gym restriction has a rational relation to public health," the Sixth Circuit disagreed, pointing to "rational speculation" by Whitmer "that heavy breathing and sweating in an enclosed space containing many shared surfaces creates conditions likely to spread the virus." The Sixth Circuit found that the "public interest weighs in favor of a stay" of Maloney’s injunction. The three-judge panel, which ruled unanimously, comprised Judges Julia Gibbons and Deborah Cook, both appointed by George W. Bush (R), and Chad Readler, who was appointed by Donald Trump (R). Following the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, Whitmer’s office released a statement commending the decision: "In the fight against a global pandemic, courts must give governors broad latitude to make quick, difficult decisions." Regarding the possibility of an appeal, an attorney for the plaintiffs said they were exploring their options.

Michigan Restaurant and Lodging Association v. Gordon: On December 2, 2020, Judge Paul Maloney, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, declined to block Michigan’s restrictions on indoor dining. A coalition of affected businesses and a hospitality industry group filed the lawsuit challenging the restrictions, which were issued by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS). The plaintiffs argued that the MDHHS order violated several provisions of the state and federal constitutions. Maloney, a George W. Bush (R) appointee, ruled that Michigan officials had plausible reasons for targeting restaurants over other businesses. In response to Maloney's ruling, MDHHS Director Robert Gordon said, "We are happy that today’s ruling keeps in place measures that will save lives by limiting specific indoor gatherings that greatly increase the risk of COVID-19 spread." The Michigan Restaurant and Lodging Association said the following in a statement: "While we are disappointed with today’s ruling . . . we will now transition our efforts to preventing an extension of the MDHHS Order beyond Dec. 8 and call on Director Gordon to provide clear and specific data to justify the sustained closure of restaurants across the state."

Michigan Association of Non-Public Schools v. Gordon: On Dec. 11, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a Statement of Interest in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan supporting a group of private schools suing Robert Gordon, the Director of Michigan’s Department of Health of Human Services. The Plaintiff schools seek to overturn Gordon’s restrictions on in-person instruction mandated in response to an uptick in statewide COVID-19 cases. In their complaint, the schools allege Michigan officials’ “closure of high schools does not advance the common good, does not advance public health, harms Michigan’s high school students, and prevents Plaintiffs from safely providing a religious education in accord with the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution.” Plaintiffs allege the closure of all Michigan high schools, public and private, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments and similar protections in Michigan’s constitution. In its Statement of Interest, the DOJ said, “The government may not make value judgments that treat religious reasons for gathering worse than nonreligious reasons for comparable gatherings.” Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s (D) representative responded to the DOJ’s intervention, stating, “Not only has the Trump administration made it clear that they won’t protect American families, front-line workers and small businesses from the spread of COVID-19, but they’re also fighting against leaders like those here in Michigan who are following the recommendations of health experts and working to eradicate COVID-19.” The case is assigned to Judge Paul Maloney, an appointee of George W. Bush (R).

LeDuff v. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services: On May 19, 2021, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) reached a settlement with journalist Charlie LeDuff, ending a lawsuit over the release of statistical information related to the state’s COVID-19 deaths. LeDuff filed the lawsuit after MDHHS denied his Freedom of Information Act request for information about the number of deaths related to COVID-19 in December 2020. Alleging that MDHHS violated the Michigan Freedom of Information Act by incorrectly applying a privacy exemption, LeDuff requested all information sought in his original FOIA request in unredacted form, including the ages of those who died, the dates of their deaths, the date each death was added to the state total, and any information about whether those deaths resulted from contracting COVID-19 at a long-term care facility. By the terms of the settlement, MDHHS disclosed the requested records or certified that the requested records did not exist. LeDuff agreed to dismiss the suit with prejudice. In response to the settlement, LeDuff said, "This is a win for the people of Michigan, and I'm glad this lawsuit was able to shed some light." MDHHS spokesman Bob Wheaton said the department was "strongly committed to protecting residents of long-term care facilities from COVID-19 and to sharing data with the public related to the pandemic."

Norris v. Stanley: On August 31, 2021, Judge Paul Maloney, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, denied a motion for a temporary restraining order to suspend Michigan State University’s (MSU) COVID-19 vaccine mandate. In her complaint, MSU employee Jeanna Norris argued that she should be exempted from the vaccine mandate because she had natural antibodies from a previous infection. MSU’s vaccine policy required all MSU faculty, staff, and students "to be vaccinated against COVID-19 with an FDA-authorized or WHO-approved vaccine." While the mandate did provide for limited medical and religious exceptions, it specifically excluded natural immunity as a qualifying exemption. Norris argued that MSU was "forcing me to choose between performing my professional duties to the best of my ability and protecting my personal health" and "between protecting my constitutional right to bodily autonomy, privacy and protection and keeping my job." Norris’ complaint further argued that MSU could not "establish a compelling governmental interest in overriding personal autonomy and constitutional rights." Maloney, upon denying Norris' motion, said she had "not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits." Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is representing Norris, said, "We have faith that when the Court has the opportunity to review the insurmountable evidence that supports the existence, durability, and robustness of natural immunity, it will recognize that MSU’s policy violates the constitutional rights of Ms. Norris and others in her position."

Minnesota

Free Minnesota Small Business Coalition v. Walz: On September 1, 2020, Judge Thomas Gilligan, of Minnesota’s Ramsey County District Court, dismissed a lawsuit filed by thirteen Republican lawmakers and a group of small businesses, challenging Governor Tim Walz’s (D) COVID-19-related executive orders. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the orders were legislative actions, which cannot be delegated to the governor according to the nondelegation doctrine of the Minnesota Constitution. The plaintiffs further alleged that Walz exceeded his statutory authority under the Minnesota Emergency Management Act, arguing that public health is not a permissible rationale for invoking emergency powers. Lastly, the plaintiffs argued that Walz’s orders violated the guarantee of equal protection by arbitrarily treating similarly situated businesses differently. Gilligan dismissed the claim, writing, "[The] Governor has acted pursuant to the authority delegated to him by the Legislature. ... [The] COVID-19 pandemic constitutes an act of nature that provides the Governor with the basis to declare a peacetime state of emergency in Minnesota." Gilligan added that subjecting the governor’s emergency actions to "a notice and comment period, public hearings, and review by an administrative law judge" would be "cumbersome and unreasonable." In an announcement, the lead plaintiffs said they "will continue the fight, by all means necessary to restore the voice and will of the People, through their representatives in the legislature, to decision-making in state government." They also set up a donation campaign with the aim of funding an appeal. Walz had not commented publicly on the suit, as of September 3, 2020.

JW v. Minnesota State High School League: On October 5, 2020, parents of high-school athletes sued the Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL) in the Hennepin County District Court, seeking to overturn restrictions on the number of spectators allowed at games. In their complaint, the plaintiffs asserted that MSHSL restrictions, which, at the time of filing, barred all spectators from indoor venues and allowed no more than 250 at outdoor venues, did not align with the state health department's less restrictive guidance. The plaintiffs argued that MSHSL was "arbitrarily making determinations regarding health risks." The plaintiffs also contended that MSHSL ignored provisions of its own constitution by amending the league’s bylaws without league member school approval. On October 8, 2020, MSHSL issued new guidance for indoor venues, allowing up to two spectators per athlete up to 250 total spectators. The outdoor venue restrictions remained unchanged. The case was assigned to Judge Thomas S. Fraser.

Missouri

Morningside Church, Inc. v. Rutledge: On August 27, 2020, Judge M. Douglas Harpool, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, dismissed a lawsuit by televangelist Jim Bakker against four Arkansas and California attorneys who were investigating Bakker's sale of a silver-based product he claimed can cure COVID-19. In his complaint, filed against the Attorney General of Arkansas, the District Attorneys of Merced and San Joaquin Counties, and the City Attorney of Los Angeles, Bakker argued that he was "divinely inspired" to sell the product "to the world, and such offerings are an integral part of" his religious mission. Bakker sued to block the collection of names, addresses, and personal financial information, arguing it would amount to a violation of the freedom to exercise religion and freedom of speech. In his order, Harpool wrote that Bakker "cannot establish the minimum contacts required to invoke personal jurisdiction" over the attorneys in the Western District Court, a procedural requirement limiting the courts in which a defendant can be sued. Consequently, Harpool dismissed Bakker's suit. Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) responded to the dismissal: "I will not tolerate illegal schemes used by Mr. Bakker that directly harm Arkansas consumers financially or physically." Former Governor of Missouri Jay Nixon (D), an attorney for Bakker, said: "It's extremely disturbing that this is happening in America."

Missouri ex rel. Schmitt v. Page: On May 11, 2021, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt (R) filed a lawsuit over ongoing COVID-19 restrictions in St. Louis County. In his complaint, filed in St. Louis County Circuit Court, Schmitt said that St. Louis County's COVID-19 mitigation measures were "among the most aggressive and restrictive imposed by any county in the State of Missouri." He argued that these measures "continue to impose unjustified burdens on religious, economic, and personal freedom.” He also argued that St. Louis County’s policies violated the state constitution’s protection of freedom of association and imposed a requirement for pre-approval of religious activities and restrictions on places of worship in violation of Missouri’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. St. Louis County and St. Louis rescinded most of the challenged restrictions on May 14, 2021, following new guidance for vaccinated individuals issued by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Reacting to this decision, Schmitt said, "This is a great victory for the people of St. Louis County."

Schmitt v. Page: On July 26, 2021, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt (R) filed suit against the city and county of St. Louis for re-imposing a mask mandate. The mandate required those aged five and older to wear a mask in indoor public places regardless of vaccination status. In his petition to the court, Schmitt argued that "St. Louis County and St. Louis City seek expanded government power that has failed to protect Missouri citizens living within their boundaries in the past and is not based on sound facts and data." Schmitt described the new mask mandate as "a continuation of a series of arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, and unconstitutional COVID-19 related restrictions." On July 27, 2021, the St. Louis County Council voted 5-2 to terminate the mandate. However, following that vote, St. Louis County Executive Dr. Sam Page issued a statement maintaining that the mandate remained in effect, pending resolution of Schmitt's lawsuit. Schmitt asked the St. Louis County Circuit Court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the mandate. On July 30, 2021, the defendants (including Page and other St. Louis county and city officials) filed a notice of removal to transfer proceedings from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. On August 1, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Clark, a Donald Trump (R) appointee, remanded the matter back to state court, writing, "The fate of the mask mandates under Missouri law belongs in the Missouri state courts.”

Montana

Cordero v. Montana State University: On September 14, 2020, a Montana State University (MSU) student filed a class-action lawsuit against the university, seeking tuition reimbursement after the cancelation of in-person classes due to Covid-19. Attorneys for Anthony Cordero, a former MSU undergraduate student, alleged that Cordero "has not been provided a pro-rated refund of the tuition for his in-person classes that were discontinued and moved online, or the Mandatory Fee he paid after MSU’s facilities were closed and events were canceled." They further argued that "MSU’s failure to provide the services for which tuition and the mandatory fees were intended to cover since approximately March 23, 2020, is a breach of the contracts and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing between MSU and Plaintiff Anthony Cordero and the members of the Class and is unjust." Tracy Ellig, a university spokesman, said that the university would not comment on pending litigation. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.

Stand Up Montana v. Bullock: On December 10, 2020, a group of business owners and other individuals sued outgoing Montana Governor Steve Bullock (D) in Lewis and Clark County District Court, seeking to overturn his COVID-19-related mask mandate and various business restrictions. In their complaint, the Plaintiffs argue Gov. Bullock's executive order declaring a state of emergency, issued in March 2020, is no longer valid, contending it should have expired after 30 days because neither the federal government nor the state Legislature explicitly allowed for its extension. Plaintiffs suggest that “[g]iven the expiration of the state of emergency, the Governor may issue no executive orders . . . with respect to his other emergency powers.” As a result, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment from the court declaring Gov. Bullock’s “state of emergency expired on April 12, 2020” and thus, “any exercise by the Governor of emergency powers since April 13, 2020, is void.” The Plaintiffs further argue that Gov. Bullock’s mandates violate separation of powers guarantees, as well as rights to privacy, free exercise of religion, and human dignity found in the U.S. and Montana Constitutions. The case has not been publicly assigned to a judge and Gov. Bullock has not commented. As the suit names Gov. Bullock in his official capacity, it may continue against incoming Governor-elect Greg Gianforte (R).

Nevada

Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak: On July 24, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request by a Nevada church for permission to hold in-person services in excess of COVID-19 capacity limits imposed by Gov. Steve Sisolak (D). The church, in its emergency application to the justices, sought an injunction pending appellate review that would bar enforcement of Directive 021, which would “allow the church to host religious gatherings on the same terms as comparable secular assemblies.” At issue in the case was the church’s argument that the capacity limit violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment in that it “treats at least seven categories of secular assemblies 'where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time' better than religious services." The directive, which imposed a 50% fire-code capacity limit on places of business, such as casinos, restaurants, and movie theaters, limited gatherings at places of worship to a 50-person maximum. The court, in a 5-4 split, rejected the request. The majority made no comment, a common practice when acting on emergency applications. In a dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the state's argument that "allowing Calvary Chapel to admit 90 worshippers presents a greater public health risk than allowing casinos to operate at 50% capacity is hard to swallow." Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh joined Alito's dissent. Justice Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh each wrote separate dissents.

300 West Sahara LLC v. Nevada: On August 24, 2020, a Las Vegas hotel, after being fined for hosting an "Evangelicals for Trump" event, filed suit in the Clark County District Court, seeking an order invalidating Governor Stephen Sisolak’s (D) ban on gatherings of more than 50 people. In its complaint, the Ahern Hotel argued that the governor's Directive 21, which allowed restaurants and casinos to operate at 50% capacity while limiting other gatherings to a maximum of 50 people, "is unreasonable because there is no rational basis for treating" businesses that host events differently than "similarly situated non-essential business." The hotel characterized this disparity as an "unlawful, arbitrary, capricious" and "clearly erroneous" violation of its rights to equal protection and due process. The hotel, therefore, sought a court order allowing convention centers, hotels, and restaurants to host events, subject to other health and safety standards under Phase II of Nevada’s Reopening Response Plan. The city and state had not commented on the suit as of September 1, 2020.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire v. Massachusetts: On October 19, 2020, the state of New Hampshire sued the commonwealth of Massachusetts, arguing that Massachusetts’ continued taxation of New Hampshire residents who were working remotely from home as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic was unconstitutional. In its complaint, New Hampshire argued that Massachusetts’ "extraterritorial assertion of taxing power is unconstitutional," as Massachusetts’ "claims the authority to tax New Hampshire residents who earn their incomes from activities they undertake solely within New Hampshire," which does not levy an income tax. New Hampshire alleged that Massachusetts' policy "subjects Granite Staters to simple but unconstitutional confiscation" New Hampshire asked the U.S. Supreme Court to prohibit Massachusetts from imposing its state income tax on New Hampshire residents working remotely for Massachusetts-based companies. Upon filing suit, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) said, "Massachusetts cannot balance its budget on the backs of our citizens, punish our workers for making the decision to work from home and keep themselves and their families and those around them safe." Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) said the following in response to the lawsuit: "Maybe I’ll reach out to my friend Chris Sununu who, when he’s not busy suing me, may be interested in having a conversation."

New Jersey

Stepien v. Murphy: On July 1, 2021, a group of New Jersey public school students and parents filed suit against state officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs asked the court to prohibit officials from implementing school mask mandates and "other Covid-related preventative, isolation, and segregation policies." The plaintiffs also asked the court to bar schools from administering COVID-19 tests to students without parental consent. They argued that the reimposition of these COVID-19 mitigation policies would "violate the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution." The plaintiffs specifically argued that mandating masks "burdens and impairs protected speech rights, inhibiting and preventing communication between students, and between students, teachers and aides.” They further contended that mandatory nasal swab tests were "invasive and in many cases [cause] injury, pain, and anxiety." The case was assigned to Judge Kevin McNulty, an appointee of Barack Obama (D).

Children’s Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey: On August 16, 2021, a group of 18 students filed suit against Rutgers University in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. At issue was Rutgers’ COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which required that all students be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 before the beginning of the fall term. Claiming that "unjustified fear and insatiable greed drive the vaccine industry," the plaintiffs contended that Rutgers’ mandate was "an affront to human dignity and personal freedom." The plaintiffs, represented by Children’s Health Defense, an advocacy group founded by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., argued that the vaccine mandate was "not authorized by any federal or state law; it actually conflicts with federal law and so is preempted by federal law." The plaintiffs also alleged that the mandate "violates the right to informed consent and to refuse unwanted medical treatment guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey.” In response, Rutgers issued a press release, saying, "The university's position on vaccines is consistent with the legal authority supporting this policy."

New York

National Rifle Association of America v. Cuomo: On August 14, 2020, Judge Mae A. D'Agostino, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern New York, dismissed a lawsuit brought by the National Rifle Association (NRA), which challenged Gov. Andrew Cuomo's (D) closure of gun stores across New York. In its complaint, the NRA challenged Executive Order 202.8, which designated gun stores as non-essential businesses and, as such, temporarily closed them to slow the spread of COVID-19. The NRA argued that the closures made it effectively impossible to legally purchase a gun in the state, an alleged violation of the Second Amendment. The organization further argued that the closure order was unconstitutionally vague, an alleged violation of the right to due process. D'Agostino dismissed the suit, ruling that, absent direct organizational harm as a result of the closures, the NRA lacked standing because "an association cannot bring an action as the representative of its members." She did not comment on the merits of the NRA's arguments. The NRA responded to the decision with a statement: "Although we respectfully disagree that the NRA lacked standing to pursue this case — then or now — we were pleased the action brought attention to an abuse of power against gun retailers." Cuomo adviser Rich Azzopardi said, "It’s no surprise that yet another frivolous suit by the NRA has been laughed out of court."

Yang v. New York State Board of Elections: On May 5, 2020, Judge Analisa Torres, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, ordered the New York State Board of Elections to reinstate the Democratic presidential preference primary, which the board had previously canceled, on June 23, 2020. The order came as the result of a lawsuit filed on April 28, 2020, by Andrew Yang, a former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, and several candidates for New York's delegation to the Democratic National Convention. In their formal complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that "this unprecedented and unwarranted move infringes the rights of Plaintiffs and all New York State Democratic Party voters ... as it fundamentally denies them the right to choose our next candidate for the office of President of the United States."

In her ruling, Torres sided with the plaintiffs, writing, "[T]he removal of presidential candidates from the primary ballot not only deprived those candidates of the chance to garner votes for the Democratic Party's nomination, but also deprived their pledged delegates of the opportunity to run for a position where they could influence the party platform, vote on party governance issues, pressure the eventual nominee on matters of personnel or policy, and react to unexpected developments at the Convention." The full text of the order can be accessed here.

Page v. Cuomo: On August 11, 2020, Judge David Hurd, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern New York, dismissed a lawsuit challenging Governor Andrew Cuomo’s (D) executive order requiring travelers entering New York from states with high COVID-19 infection rates to self-quarantine. Arizona-resident Cynthia Page brought the suit after she was forced to cancel a planned trip to Brooklyn, New York, because she could not fulfill the quarantine requirements. In her complaint, Page argued that the mandatory quarantine violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process. Page also argued that the quarantine requirement violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which guarantees legal protections related to national citizenship, such as the right to interstate travel. Hurd rejected these arguments: "The state is not drawing a distinction between residents and non-residents but between individuals with and without a mathematically heightened risk of spreading COVID–19." He added that, even if the order "infringed her liberty interest in the right to travel, the COVID–19 pandemic is precisely the scenario for which emergency action would be expected." Page filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Bronx Defenders v. Office of Court Administration of the State of New York : On July 28, 2020, Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissed a lawsuit seeking to block the resumption of in-person criminal proceedings in New York City, which were suspended in March as a COVID-19 safety precaution. In their complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the Office of Court Administration’s actions "endanger the lives of thousands of New Yorkers by perpetuating the spread of this virus and burden the constitutional rights to access the courts." The plaintiffs also argued that the reinstatement of in-person criminal proceedings violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Carter disagreed, writing in his ruling that the relief requested by the plaintiffs would require an impermissible "intrusion into state court operations and proceedings," which would disrupt "[t]he special delicacy of the adjustment to be preserved between federal equitable power and state administration of its own law." In response to the ruling, a spokesperson for the Office of Court Administration issued a statement to the press: "We are pleased with Judge Carter's decision allowing us to continue deliberate, measured and careful resumption of in-person appearances." The plaintiffs said the following in a post-ruling statement: "[We] are enormously disappointed that the federal court relied on a technicality to allow the Office of Court Administration" to place New Yorkers in "unnecessary risk during a pandemic."

New York v. U.S. Department of Labor: On August 3, 2020, as the result of a challenge by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated portions of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) final rule implementing the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). The FFCRA mandated that certain employers provide paid emergency sick and/or family leave to employees who were unable to work due to mandated COVID-19 quarantine or symptoms. The mandate also extended to parents and guardians in the event of school or childcare unavailability. In its complaint, New York argued that the DOL violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the final rule restricted eligibility under the FFCRA in a manner that was "not authorized by, and conflict[ed] with, the FFCRA" and exceeded the statutory authority provided by the FFCRA by imposing additional burdens on employees seeking to claim its benefits. In so doing, New York argued, the DOL was responsible for denying "vital financial support and exposing millions of American workers and their communities to further transmission of infectious disease in the middle of a once-in-a-century pandemic." Oetken vacated the final rule's work-availability requirement, which made employees ineligible for leave under the FFCRA if their employers had no work for them because of COVID-related slowdowns or temporary closures. Oetken also struck down the DOL's definition of a non-eligible health care provider, the requirement that an employee secure employer consent for intermittent leave, and the requirement that documentation be provided before taking leave. The remainder of the final rule was allowed to stand.

New York Independent Venue Association v. Bradley: On August 25, 2020, a group of businesses filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenging state restrictions that barred venues from hosting ticketed live music events and other events with cover charges. Venues were also barred from advertising live entertainment. The plaintiffs argued that the New York Liquor Authority rule effecting these restrictions "is not just unworkable, it is unconstitutional." The plaintiffs contended that the rule violated the constitutional guarantees of free speech, procedural and substantive due process, and state agency rulemaking procedures. Commenting on the suit, Justin Kantor, the New York Independent Venue Association co-chair, said, "These venues are doing everything possible to safely reopen and offer work to both artists and employees, even if it is at a financial loss, only to have New York state impose knee-jerk regulations that have now added unnecessary and unlawful restraints to our already devastated industry." As of August 31, 2020, the New York Liquor Authority had not commented publicly on the suit, which was assigned to Judge Gregory Howard Woods, an appointee of President Barack Obama (D).

The Cloister East, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority: On September 11, 2020, Judge Arthur F. Engoron, of the New York County Supreme Court, granted a temporary restraining order against the New York State Liquor Authority (SLA), allowing an East Village cafe to reopen. The Cloister Cafe was shut down in August 2020 after authorities alleged it had hosted secretive late-night parties in violation of COVID-19 restrictions. The cafe challenged the shut-down in federal court, but Judge Lewis Kaplan, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, denied the cafe a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The cafe then initiated an Article 78 proceeding in state court. Article 78 proceedings are used to appeal the decision of a New York state or local agency to state court. In its complaint, the cafe argued that SLA had deprived it of its liquor license in violation of state law and its constitutional rights. The cafe alleged that the license revocation was done without notice, "or any pre-suspension opportunity to be heard," in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due process.

In his order, Engoron did not specify reasons for granting the temporary restraining order. He did note that "any credible evidence of a significant future infraction [on the part of the cafe] will result in immediate reinstatement of the suspension." Robert Garson, an attorney for the cafe, welcomed the ruling, saying it "may provide a light at the end of the tunnel for all of those restaurant and beverage workers who have also had their licenses summarily and unconstitutionally stripped from them." In a statement to the press, the SLA said it "will continue to vigorously defend the state’s actions and remain laser focused on protecting New Yorkers during this pandemic." A full hearing on the merits was scheduled for October 5, 2020.

Turturro Law, P.C. v. Cuomo: On October 8, 2020, a Brooklyn law firm closed by the state after an increase in Covid-19 infection rates near its office sued Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) and New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio (D) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In its complaint, the firm, located in an area deemed a "red-zone" under the state’s "cluster action initiative," argued that there was "no scientific or other rational basis" for classifying certain parts of the state in this manner. The firm "seeks recovery for deprivations sustained by Plaintiff, and for violations committed by Defendants while acting under color of state law against Plaintiff’s rights and privileges guaranteed by" the Dormant Commerce Clause, Contracts Clause, Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In a statement, Richard Azzopardi, a spokesperson for Cuomo, said, "We’re focused on breaking this cluster and saving lives. Being unhappy is better than being sick or dead."

Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo: On October 16, 2020, Judge Nicholas Garaufis, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, declined to block Governor Andrew Cuomo’s (D) Covid-19 gathering-size restrictions as applied to places of worship. The lawsuit stemmed from a policy that imposed capacity restrictions on nonessential businesses and gatherings on a regional basis: in higher-risk "red" and "orange zones," in-person gatherings were limited to the lesser of 10 people or 25 percent of capacity and the lesser of 25 people or 33 percent of capacity, respectively. In its complaint, the Diocese argued that Cuomo’s order "plainly and unconstitutionally targets religious practice." In his ruling, Garaufis, a Bill Clinton (D) appointee, found that the "public interest analysis, and accordingly the balance of the equities, cuts in favor of the State, which is trying to contain a deadly and highly contagious disease." In a statement, the Diocese said it "is extremely disappointed" by the ruling and would "continue to advocate for places of worship to be classified as essential, for there is nothing more necessary today than a community of believers, united in prayer, asking the Lord to end this pandemic." Caitlin Girouard, Cuomo's press secretary, said, "We will let the decision speak for itself." The Diocese filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Palmer v. Amazon.com, Inc.: On November 2, 2020, Judge Brian Cogan, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, dismissed a lawsuit seeking to compel Amazon to provide extra workplace protections related to Covid-19. In their complaint, employees at Amazon’s Staten Island warehouse alleged that "Amazon’s current policies and practices constitute a public nuisance." The plaintiffs alleged that Amazon "undermines its workers’ efforts to protect themselves and their coworkers from the virus . . . through a culture of workplace fear," improper back pay for quarantine leave, and failure "to comply with public health guidance." In his dismissal order, Cogan said, "[Courts] are not expert in public health or workplace safety matters, and lack the training, expertise, and resources to oversee compliance with evolving industry guidance." Cogan added, "[Courts] are particularly ill-suited to address this evolving situation and the risk of inconsistent rulings is high."

Amazon.com, Inc. v. James: On February 12, 2021, Amazon filed suit against New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking to preempt state-level regulation of its COVID-19 workplace safety protocols. In its complaint, Amazon argued that the suit was necessary to block James' threats "to sue Amazon if it does not immediately agree to a list of demands, many of which have no connection to health and safety and have no factual or legal basis." Amazon further contended that New York "lacks the legal authority it purports to wield," arguing that federal law preempts state-level laws regulating workplace safety. Responding to the lawsuit, James said, "This action by Amazon is nothing more than a sad attempt to distract from the facts and shirk accountability for its failures to protect hardworking employees from a deadly virus." The case was assigned to Judge Allyne Ross, an appointee of President Bill Clinton (D).

Maniscalco v. New York City Department of Education: On October 1, 2021, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected an emergency application seeking to suspend New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for public-school teachers and staff. The petitioners had asked Sotomayor to suspend the mandate, which required that teachers and staff provide proof of full vaccination against COVID-19 no later than 5 p.m. EDT on October 1, 2021, while the case proceeded in lower courts. In their original complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the petitioners argued that the mandate violated their constitutional right to substantive due process and infringed upon "deeply rooted liberty interests, including the right to work as teachers." Judge Brian Cogan, an appointee of George W. Bush (R), declined to grant petitioners a preliminary injunction, finding that the mandate "represent[ed] a rational policy decision surrounding how best to protect children during a global pandemic." Petitioners appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where Judge Joseph Bianco, also a Bush appointee, granted a temporary restraining order against the mandate pending a decision by a three-judge panel. That panel subsequently reversed Bianco’s temporary restraining order and declined to issue an injunction pending appeal, prompting the petitioners to file their emergency application with Sotomayor. Vinoo Varghese, an attorney for the petitioners, said, "We are disappointed, but the fight for our clients' due process and those similarly situated will go on."

Dr. A. v. Hochul: On October 12, 2021, a federal judge ruled in favor of a group of 17 healthcare workers seeking religious exemptions to New York's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Judge David Hurd, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, issued a preliminary injunction barring the New York State Department of Health "from interfering in any way with the granting of religious exemptions from Covid-19 vaccination going forward or with the operation of exemptions already granted." In their complaint, the healthcare workers argued that their religious beliefs forbade them from consenting to inoculation with any vaccines "that were tested, developed or produced with fetal cell lines derived from procured abortions." They argued that the mandate, absent a religious exemption, violated protections provided under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, New York State's Human Rights Law, and the U.S. Constitution. In his order, Hurd, a Bill Clinton (D) appointee, noted that the mandate had been amended to eliminate a previously permitted religious exemption. Hurd said, "[T]his intentional change in language is the kind of 'religious gerrymander' that triggers heightened scrutiny," Hurd concluded that the "plaintiffs [were] likely to succeed on the merits of this constitutional claim" and were, therefore, entitled to an injunction. Hurd said that his order did not address "whether plaintiffs and other individuals [were] entitled to a religious exemption from the State’s workplace vaccination requirement," but rather whether they had the "right to seek a religious accommodation from their individual employers." Hurd had previously blocked the mandate’s enforcement against those claiming religious exemptions on an emergency basis, granting the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order against the state on September 14, 2021. Hurd’s October 12 injunction extended that earlier order. Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) said, "I stand behind this mandate, and I will fight this decision in court to keep New Yorkers safe."

North Carolina

Berean Baptist Church v. Cooper: On May 16, 2020, Judge James Dever, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, issued a temporary restraining order against a provision of Gov. Roy Cooper's (D) Executive Order 138 that barred indoor religious services involving more than 10 people. The plaintiffs in the suit – Berean Baptist Church, Return America, Inc., Ronnie Baity, and People's Baptist Church, Inc., – alleged that this provision of the order violated their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Dever agreed, writing the following in his order: "There is no pandemic exception to the Constitution of the United States or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise claim concerning the assembly for religious worship provisions in Executive Order 138, that they will suffer irreparable harm absent a temporary restraining order, that the equities tip in their favor, and that a temporary restraining order is in the public interest."

Ford Porter, a spokesman for Cooper's office, said the governor would not appeal the decision.

Forest v. Cooper: On July 1, 2020, North Carolina Lt. Gov. Dan Forest (R) filed suit against Gov. Roy Cooper (D) in Wake County’s Tenth Judicial District Court, alleging procedural violations in Cooper's implementation of COVID-19 restrictions. In his complaint, Forest sought an injunction against enforcement of Cooper's executive orders 118, 121, 135, 138, 141, and 147 (collectively referred to as the shutdown orders). These orders limited food and beverage service at restaurants, mandated social distancing, limited mass gatherings, restricted travel, closed certain businesses, and provided for business reopening plans. Forest alleged that Cooper violated the North Carolina Emergency Management Act by failing "to receive the concurrence of the council of state prior to the shutdown being issued." The council of state is the collective name for the elected senior executive offices in the state, including the lieutenant governor. Forest argued that Cooper's orders violated provisions of North Carolina’s quarantine and isolation statutes. In a press release, Forest said his intention was not to challenge the substance of the orders, but instead the nature of their issuance. As of July 7, 2020, Cooper had not responded publicly to the lawsuit.

Neve v. Birkhead: On April 16, 2021, a former deputy of the Durham County (North Carolina) Sheriff’s Department sued Sheriff Clarence Birkhead, alleging that Birkhead had wrongly terminated him for not being vaccinated against COVID-19. The former deputy, Christopher Neve, filed his complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, seeking a declaration that the department's mandatory vaccine requirement was unconstitutional, back pay, and reinstatement to his former position. Neve argued that Birkhead had denied "each employee’s statutorily guaranteed right to decide for him or herself whether to accept or refuse administration of the COVID-19 vaccines," a violation of due process. In a statement to the press, AnnMarie Breen, a representative for the Durham County Sheriff's Office, declined to comment on the pending litigation. The case was assigned to Judge Loretta Copeland Biggs, an appointee of President Barack Obama (D).

Ohio

Rock House Fitness, Inc. v. Acton: On May 20, 2020, Judge Eugene A. Lucci, of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Rock House Fitness, Inc. v. Acton, barring government officials at the state and local levels from imposing penalties against gyms and fitness centers that refused to comply with a state order requiring the closure of such facilities. The suit was brought by 35 Ohio gyms and fitness centers, which argued that the stay-at-home order issued by Amy Acton, the state health director, violated multiple provisions of the Ohio constitution. Attorneys for the plaintiffs alleged that "one of two conclusions is necessarily true: either (i) the General Assembly's delegation of authority to the Ohio Department of Health ... is too broad or vague; or (ii) the Ohio Department of Health's exercise of the delegated authority is too broad." They went on to say that "under either conclusion, the [order], in criminalizing the operation of gyms, violates the separation fo powers guarantees to which plaintiffs are entitled."

Lucci sided with the plaintiffs and granted their request for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the closure order. Lucci said, "The director has quarantined the entire people of the state of Ohio, for much more than 14 days. The director has no statutory authority to close all businesses, including the plaintiffs' gyms, which she deems non-essential for a period of two months. She has acted in an impermissibly arbitrary, unreasonable, and oppressive manner and without any procedural safeguards." Lucci prohibited officials from closing or otherwise penalizing gyms that reopened, provided they "operate in compliance with all applicable safety regulations, whether those in the state's order, the state's supplemental guidelines governing businesses like those of the plaintiffs in this case, or the Lake County General Health District."

Dan Tierney, a spokesman for Governor Mike DeWine (R), said, "The ruling affirms that facilities must follow Ohio Department of Health safety protocols to keep patrons and all Ohioans safe and healthy. These facilities were due to open Tuesday anyways. However, our office disagrees with the ruling’s analysis of law." Tierney said DeWine would consult with Attorney General Dave Yost (R) on the possibility of an appeal.

Miller v. Himes: On September 10, 2020, a group of parents filed suit in the Putnam County Court of Common Pleas, challenging the constitutionality of Ohio's mask mandate for schools. The mandate required public and private students in kindergarten through twelfth grade to wear facial coverings while on campus, with some exceptions. The parents alleged that the order infringed on their religious beliefs, and those of their children, as well as their constitutional right to raise their children as they see fit. The parents further argued that, because the efficacy of wearing masks as a preventative measure had become politicized, mandating their use constituted impermissible speech compulsion. Lance Himes, interim director of the Ohio Department of Health, had not commented as of September 21, 2020.

Woodson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction: On April 12, 2021, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio filed suit in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, challenging the state prison system’s garnishment of inmates’ COVID-19 federal stimulus payments. The ACLU argued that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) unlawfully seized stimulus checks from inmates and held them "for weeks while it manufactured a basis, despite and contrary to the guidance of the Ohio Attorney General, to extract a portion of them” to pay court fees and the corrections department itself. The ACLU further asserted that this garnishment practice treated "people incarcerated in Ohio prisons differently from all other Ohioans," in violation of the prisoners' rights to equal protection under the Ohio Constitution. The ACLU asked that court order "relief to prevent ODRC and prison staff from wrongfully withholding prisoners' relief funds." Alternatively, the ACLU requested that the court issue an order "requiring Defendant ODRC to reverse its policy and to order all wrongfully garnished funds to be remitted to Plaintiffs." As of April 20, 2021, the ODRC had not responded publicly to the lawsuit. The case was assigned to Judge Dan Hawkins (R).

Oklahoma

Greenwood Centre, Ltd. v. SMG and ASM Global Parent, Inc. On June 16, 2020. Judge Rebecca B. Nightingale, of the District Court of Tulsa County, denied a request for a temporary injunction seeking to force a scheduled rally by the Donald Trump (R) campaign to abide by state and local reopening rules, which are modeled after CDC guidelines, designed to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. The complaint, filed by petitioners from Tulsa’s Greenwood District against the owner of the proposed rally venue, sought a court order "to protect against a substantial, imminent, and deadly risk to the community" posed by the June 20 event. Plaintiffs, while not seeking to bar the rally outright, sought "limited relief based on Oklahoma’s public nuisance laws," asking that the court mandate social distancing protocols and compulsory use of face-masks. Following Nightingale’s denial of the emergency motion, the plaintiffs sought review from the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The state supreme court declined to take up the case.

South Wind Women's Center v. Stitt: On March 30, 2020, a group of abortion providers filed suit against Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) after he signed an executive order postponing all elective surgeries until April 30, which included abortions. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The plaintiffs in the case were represented by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

On April 6, Judge Charles B. Goodwin issued a temporary restraining order against the governor's executive order. His order allowed women in Oklahoma to receive abortions if they would be beyond the legal 20-week limit by April 30. The ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On April 13, the Tenth Circuit issued a unanimous, unsigned opinion upholding the lower court's ruling. A preliminary injunction against the order was issued on April 20, meaning abortion access would resume April 24 and last until a decision was reached in the case.

Oregon

Don't Shoot Portland v. Portland: On June 9, 2020, Judge Marco A. Hernandez, of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, issued a temporary restraining order limiting the use of tear gas as a crowd control method in Portland, Oregon. The plaintiffs, a group named Don’t Shoot Portland, alleged that the city had violated their rights to free speech and freedom from excessive force under the First and Fourth Amendments, respectively, by using tear gas to disperse their protests. Hernandez agreed, writing, "[Given] the effects of tear gas," which is "specifically designed to irritate the respiratory system and to cause people to expel mucus and aspirated saliva," a principal method of COVID-19 transmission, "Plaintiffs have established a strong likelihood that Defendant engaged in excessive force contrary to the Fourth Amendment." He added that the plaintiffs had presented "at least a serious question as to whether they have been deprived of their First Amendment rights." The judge noted that his order did not bar the use of tear gas altogether, but instead limited use "to situations in which the lives or safety of the public or the police are at risk." As of June 16, 2020, the city had not indicated whether it intended to appeal the decision.

Graham v. Brown: On July 8, 2020, the owner of a beauty salon in Salem, Oregon, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, alleging that Gov. Kate Brown (D) and other state officials and agencies had violated her constitutional rights by temporarily shutting down her salon. In her complaint, salon owner Lindsey Graham argued that Brown’s Executive Order 20-12, which required salons like Graham’s to cease operations immediately and indefinitely, violated her constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. Additionally, Graham alleged that various state actors "engaged in a course of conduct intended to harass, intimidate, extort, and bully" Graham for exercising her First Amendment rights to speech and protest after challenging the logic behind, and authority to impose, COVID-19 restrictions. Neither Brown nor her office had commented publicly on the suit as of July 29, 2020.

Linthicum v. Brown: On October 16, 2020, three Oregon state lawmakers and a local businessman filed suit in Multnomah County Circuit Court against Gov. Kate Brown (D), claiming that she had overstepped her authority by issuing stay-at-home orders and restricting business activity. The plaintiffs – state Reps. Werner Reschke (R) and Mike Nearman (R), state Sen. Dennis Linthicum (R), and Washington County businessman Neil Ruggles – argued that Brown had "arrogated unto herself legislative powers of sweeping scope to reorder social life and destroy the livelihoods of residents across the state, which powers are reserved exclusively for the Legislative Assembly by the Oregon Constitution." The plaintiffs sought an injunction blocking Brown’s state-of-emergency declaration and any rules emanating from it, as well as a declaratory judgment settling their state constitutional claims. In response, Charles Boyle, a spokesman for Brown, said, "The governor is focused on implementing measures to keep Oregonians healthy and safe, based on the advice of doctors and health experts and what the data shows will limit the spread of Covid-19."

Oregon Fraternal Order of Police v. Brown: On October 7, 2021, a judge declined to suspend Oregon’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for certain state employees. At issue was Gov. Kate Brown’s (D) Executive Order No. 21-29, which mandated that all employees of the executive branch submit either proof of vaccination against COVID-19 or a written request for exemption on or before October 18, 2021, or face termination. In their complaint, a group of Oregon State Troopers, together with police and firefighter associations, argued that the mandate violated "the Oregon Constitution’s guarantee of free expression and conflict[ed] with the United States Constitution guarantee of equal protection, free exercise, and due process.” The plaintiffs asked that the court suspend the mandate. In his order, retired Oregon Supreme Court Justice Jack Landau, writing on behalf of the Jefferson County Circuit Court, found that the plaintiffs had not shown any "likelihood of success on the merits under any of the legal theories alleged in their complaint" and were, therefore, not entitled to a temporary restraining order against the mandate. Landau also dismissed the plaintiffs' arguments that emergency action was necessary to prevent irreparable harm. After the ruling, Dan Thenell, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told reporters that “the plaintiffs [were] assessing their options for moving forward.”

Pennsylvania

Friends of Danny DeVito v. Wolf: On May 6, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to intervene in a lawsuit over a Pennsylvania order curtailing the operations of non-essential businesses, allowing the state supreme court's ruling, which upheld the order, to stand.

On March 24, 2020, the plaintiffs (a number of Pennsylvania businesses) petitioned the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to vacate Governor Tom Wolf's (D) March 19 order restricting the operations of non-essential businesses in the state. The plaintiffs alleged that the order violated their constitutional rights to free speech, assembly, and judicial review. The plaintiffs also argued that the order violated their rights by depriving them of their property without due process or just compensation.

On April 13, 2020, the state supreme court rejected the plaintiffs' claims, allowing Wolf's order to stand. On April 27, 2020, the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, seeking a stay of enforcement of the order pending disposition of the case. On May 6, 2020, the high court denied the plaintiffs' application without comment.

Wolf v. Scarnati: On July 1, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled against legislative Republicans in favor of Gov. Tom Wolf (D), upholding his ability to maintain COVID-19 shutdown orders. The lawsuit stemmed from Wolf’s March 6, 2020, emergency disaster proclamation, which he renewed on June 3, 2020. On June 9, 2020, the Pennsylvania General Assembly adopted a concurrent resolution, HR836, seeking to terminate the disaster emergency, which was not presented to the governor for approval or veto. The governor did not comply. Three Republican state senators filed a complaint in the Commonwealth Court, asking the court to command Wolf to comply with their resolution by "issuing an executive order or proclamation ending the state of disaster emergency." Wolf asked the state supreme court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction, thus removing the case to the high court. The state supreme court held that HR836 was a legal nullity because the Pennsylvania Constitution required that concurrent resolutions relating to emergency declarations be presented to the governor for approval or veto. As the General Assembly did not do so, the court refused to order Wolf to end the shutdown, stating, "The Pennsylvania Constitution does not empower the legislature to act unilaterally to suspend a law, and the Governor’s purported suspension of law did not violate the non-delegation doctrine." Justice David N. Wecht wrote the court's opinion, which Justices Max Baer, Debra Todd, and Christine Donohue joined. Justice Kevin M. Dougherty filed a separate opinion, concurring and dissenting in part.

Parker v. Wolf: On September 3, 2020, two Pennsylvania couples filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Gov. Tom Wolf (D), challenging Wolf's COVID-19 contact tracing program and mask mandate. In their complaint, the plaintiffs objected to "Wolf’s unilateral exercise of power," arguing that he "has assumed the power to lord over the lives of Pennsylvanians like a king, mandating restrictions that deprive citizens, including plaintiffs, of their fundamental liberties." The plaintiffs alleged that Wolf's actions violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association; Fourth Amendment freedom from unlawful search and seizure; and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of due process, equal protection, and privacy. They also contended that the governor's actions violated the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the federal government to guarantee that the states maintain a republican form of government. Wolf's office had not commented publicly on the lawsuit as of September 8, 2020.

County of Butler v. Wolf: On September 14, 2020, Judge William Shaw Stickman, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, struck down some of Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf’s (D) COVID-19 orders. The suit, which was brought on behalf of various Pennsylvania counties, businesses, and elected officials, challenged Wolf’s restrictions on indoor and outdoor gatherings, the continued closure of "non-life-sustaining" businesses, and prolonged stay-at-home orders. Writing that the "liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms," Stickman, an appointee of President Donald Trump (R), ruled that the "Constitution cannot accept the concept of a 'new normal' where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures." In his order, Stickman found "(1) that the congregate gathering limits … violate the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment; (2) that the stay-at-home and business closure components of defendants' orders violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) that the business closure components of defendants' orders violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Stickman limited remedy to the plaintiff individuals and businesses, dismissing the counties for lacking standing to sue. Reacting to the order, Thomas E. Breth, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said, "You can't tell 13 million Pennsylvanians that they have to stay home. That's not America. It never was. That order was horrible." Lyndsay Kensinger, Wolf’s press secretary, indicated that Wolf would seek to stay the decision while seeking an appeal, adding that the "ruling does not impact any of the other mitigation orders currently in place including … mandatory telework, mandatory mask order, worker safety order, and the building safety order."

On September 22, 2020, Stickman declined to stay his initial order, ruling that a stay would be unwarranted given his finding that Wolf had not met the "burden of establishing even the minimal showing of success on the merits" upon appeal. Stickman said that Wolf’s participation in "large public protests across the Commonwealth" during the summer, and the voluntary suspension of certain stay-at-home and business closure orders, undermined Wolf’s argument that his administration and the people of Pennsylvania would result in irreparable harm absent a stay. In response to this, and alluding to the pending appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Wolf said, "We’re working in the meantime to present schools and others with guidance to say ok, in our best estimation from the health point of view, you got to be careful if you get together."

A.M. v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association, Inc.: On October 1, 2020, Judge Susan Baxter, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, dismissed a claim by four student athletes who were refused entry to a golf tournament administered by the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA). The plaintiffs alleged that, eight days before the tournament, the PIAA "arbitrarily and capriciously reduced the number of qualifiers." The students argued that "the reduction of numbers has no quantifiable relationship on the spread of Covid-19 as it relates to outdoor activities such as golf." They asked the court to order the PIAA to allow them to participate in the tournament. Baxter denied that request, writing in her opinion, "It is not the court's job to decide the better course, but to ensure the one taken was not arbitrary and capricious, or for a wrongful purpose. Although the decision was a painful one for the plaintiffs, it was done with a rational basis and passes muster under the law."

South Carolina

Ike’s Korner Grille v. South Carolina: On September 20, 2020, a Spartanburg County restaurant sued the state of South Carolina and Governor Henry McMaster (R), arguing that McMaster's COVID-19 executive orders "are not authorized by the laws of South Carolina and violate the South Carolina Constitution." In its complaint, Ike’s Korner Grille, which received multiple violation notifications for failure to abide by the mandatory safety measures, alleged that the orders posed "the threat of lasting and permanent harm" to its "business and personal liberty by the restrictive micro-managing of operations." The restaurant argued that McMaster’s orders exceeded the statutory time-limit for a state of emergency and unconstitutionally "usurp the legislative power of the General Assembly." A spokesperson from McMaster’s office said, "[The] governor is confident in the constitutionality of the targeted, deliberate and limited measures that have been put in place to help stop the spread of the virus." The suit was filed in the Spartanburg County Court of Common Pleas.

South Dakota

Noem v. Haaland: On June 2, 2021, Chief Judge Roberto Lange, of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, rejected an attempt by South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R) to hold a fireworks display at Mount Rushmore to commemorate the Fourth of July. Lange, an appointee of President Barack Obama (D), declined to grant Noem's request for a preliminary injunction after the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) declined to permit the fireworks display. Upon rejecting Noem's permit, the DOI cited the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and other environmental, cultural, and safety concerns. In her complaint, Noem argued that DOI’s permit rejection letter was "a patchwork of vague and speculative purported concerns" that violated a memorandum of understanding between the state and the Donald Trump (R) administration. Noem also asserted that the 2020 fireworks display "was a rousing success, and not a single COVID-19 case was traced back to it." In his order denying the preliminary injunction, Lange found that "under governing law, the State is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims and has not met the requirements" to prove that DOI acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Noem said she would appeal the decision, adding, "We will continue fighting to once again return fireworks to Mount Rushmore."

Texas

Planned Parenthood for Choice v. Abbott: On March 25, 2020, a group of abortion providers filed suit against Gov. Greg Abbott (R) after he signed an executive order postponing all elective surgeries until April 21, which included abortions. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs in the case were represented by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the Lawyering Project.

On April 9, Judge Earl Yeakel struck down portions of the executive order. His ruling allowed for abortions if the individual would be beyond the legal 22-week limit by April 21 and for medication abortions. The ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 10, the Fifth Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling that overturned the lower court's decision on medication abortions but did allow abortions to continue if the individual would be beyond the legal 22-week limit by April 21.

On April 11, Planned Parenthood appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking the court to overturn the ban on medication abortions. Prior to any action by the court, on April 13, the Fifth Circuit issued an unsigned opinion allowing medication abortions to proceed.

Lang v. Texas Health and Human Services: On August 3, 2020, five Texas state lawmakers filed suit in Travis County District Court, asking the court to invalidate a $295 million-dollar COVID-19 contact tracing contract. At issue in the case was Governor Greg Abbott’s (R) use of emergency powers to procure and sign the contract outside normal procurement processes and without legislative approval. The plaintiff lawmakers were Texas State Reps. Mike Lang (R), Kyle Biedermann (R), Bill Zedler (R), Steve Toth (R) and Sen. Bob Hall (R). In their complaint, the lawmakers contended that Abbott’s emergency actions were incompatible with Texas law, arguing that the "request for proposal for the contract was inadequate, the contract bid process was a sham, and the contract impermissibly exceeds two years." The lawmakers argued that the Texas law "designed to ensure smooth operation during emergencies" could not be used as cover by the executive branch to expend “essentially unlimited funds toward a goal unidentified by the legislature." The legislators contended that the contract was awarded in violation of Texas Gov't Code § 2155.063, which requires "a purchase of or contract for goods or services shall, whenever possible, be accomplished through competitive bidding." Abbott responded to the suit, saying, "Every lawsuit that has been filed against me has either been won in court or dismissed … this lawsuit will meet that exact same fate."

Renneberg v. Abbott: On September 8, 2020, two families filed suit against Governor Greg Abbott (R) in the Travis County District Court, challenging COVID-19 visitation restrictions for nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The plaintiffs, who had been unable to visit their family members in care facilities at the time of filing, argued that Abbott and the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) were violating their constitutional and statutory rights "by prohibiting essential family visitors, damaging the health of residents in these facilities, and costing precious time to the residents and their families." Citing the Texas Human Resources Code, which guarantees an elderly individual "a private place for receiving visitors," with limited exceptions, the plaintiffs contended that officials were "impeding this right and ... suspending this portion of the law without authority." The plaintiffs asked for the court to "issue a temporary and permanent injunction allowing for safe and limited family visits for essential family caregivers." As of September 16, 2020, Abbott's office had not commented, and HHSC had declined to comment on the pending lawsuit.

Pizza Properties, Inc. v. El Paso County: On October 30, 2020, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) joined a lawsuit challenging El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego’s (D) order closing non-essential businesses and imposing a curfew. The lawsuit, filed in El Paso County’s 34th Judicial District Court by ten El Paso restaurants, claimed that Samaniego’s order illegally usurped the governor’s authority. In his motion to intervene, Paxton argued the state "has an intrinsic right to enact, interpret, and enforce its own laws," including "authority to sue to redress any violations of" public rights. Paxton further argued, "Judge Samaniego has no authority under [state law] to preempt or supersede" Governor Greg Abbott's (R) orders. In a statement to the press, Samaniego said, "We received a lawsuit, however until such time that a Court orders otherwise, my order still stands."

Texas v. City of Austin: On January 1, 2021, the Texas Supreme Court halted Travis County and Austin restaurant restrictions. The restrictions, which took effect on New Year’s Eve, aimed to limit restaurants to take-out only over the holiday weekend. In its unsigned order, the court conditionally granted a request by Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), directing the Third Court of Appeals to block enforcement of the restrictions "pending final resolution of the appeal." The decision followed defeats at both the trial and appellate levels for Paxton, who initially challenged the restrictions on December 30, 2020, hoping to block their enforcement in time for New Year’s Eve. In his initial complaint in the Travis County District Court, Paxton argued that the local orders conflicted with Governor Greg Abbott’s (R) Executive Order GA-32, which both allowed restaurants and bars to operate at reduced capacity and prohibited "any conflicting order issued by local officials in response to the COVID-19 disaster." The trial court disagreed, and the Third Court of Appeals initially rejected Paxton’s appeal. Following the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling, Paxton thanked the court "for upholding the rule of law," saying that the court "was right to end these oppressive, illegal city and county declarations." Travis County Judge Andy Brown said he was disappointed by the decision "as it limits our ability to slow the spread of COVID-19 in our community." The restrictions expired at 6:00 a.m. on January 3, 2021.

Terkel v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: On February 25, 2021, a U.S. District Court ruled that the federal government's moratorium on evictions, implemented in response to the pandemic, was unconstitutional. The plaintiffs, a group of landlords and property managers, argued that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had (CDC) "clearly transgressed well established constitutional constraints" in issuing the moratorium order. In his decision, Judge J. Campbell Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas held that the Constitution’s commerce clause, which allows for federal regulation of interstate commerce, including any economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, did not permit federal regulation of evictions. Barker found that the specific activity regulated by the moratorium—evictions—was not "economic in material respect." Baker said, "The federal government has not claimed such a power at any point during our nation's history until last year. … Although the COVID-19 pandemic persists, so does the Constitution." In response to the ruling, Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Division, issued a statement stressing that the ruling "does not extend beyond the particular plaintiffs in that case," and that "the CDC’s eviction moratorium remains in effect." On February 27, 2021, the federal government filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital: On June 12, 2021, Judge Lynn Hughes, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, dismissed a lawsuit over Houston Methodist Hospital's requirement that most employees (i.e., those without a religious or medical exemption) be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by June 7, 2021. Employees who failed to meet this requirement were suspended without pay and given 14 days to be fully vaccinated or face termination. The plaintiffs – 117 hospital employees – alleged that the vaccine mandate violated federal drug laws by "forcing [the hospital system's] employees to be human 'guinea pigs' as a condition for continued employment." The plaintiffs argued that the pending terminations constituted wrongful discharge. Hughes, a Ronald Reagan (R) appointee, disagreed, ruling that the plaintiffs "can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine." Hughes added that, if plaintiffs refused to be vaccinated, they would "simply need to work somewhere else." Hughes also ruled that the plaintiffs' federal and state law arguments "misrepresented the facts" and "fail as a matter of law." In response to Hughes' ruling, hospital president and CEO Marc Boom said, "We can now put this behind us and continue our focus on unparalleled safety, quality, service and innovation." Jennifer Bridges, the lead plaintiff in the case, said, "We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court. This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning."

City of San Antonio v. Abbott; Jenkins v. Abbott: On August 15, 2021, the Texas Supreme Court temporarily affirmed the validity of Gov. Greg Abbott's (R) executive order prohibiting local mask mandates across the state. Both Bexar and Dallas counties issued local mask mandates in contravention of Abbot's Executive Order GA-38, which prohibited schools and local governments from requiring masks. Earlier, two state-level trial courts, from the 45th and 116th Judicial District Courts, found that Dallas and Bexar Counties would be irreparably harmed if unable to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 through mask mandates. As a result, the district courts issued temporary restraining orders against the enforcement of Executive Order GA-38. Those restraining orders were left in place by the Fourth and Fifth Courts of Appeals. Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) then took the matter to the Texas Supreme Court, asking it to order the trial courts to overturn their decisions. Although the state supreme court did not immediately issue a written opinion ruling on the ultimate merits of Abbott's and Paxton's arguments, the stays temporarily overturned the restraining orders won by Dallas and Bexar counties in the lower courts, and therefore limited their ability to proceed with mask mandates.

Vermont

Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance Co. v. Town of Bolton: On January 28, 2021, a Chittenden County Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance Company (CATIC) against nine Vermont town clerks. In its complaint, CATIC had asked the court to mandate that town clerks take "reasonable steps necessary to ensure that their municipal land and zoning records are fully available for inspection and copying by the public during the municipalities’ previously established customary hours," notwithstanding COVID-19 restrictions on access to government buildings and resources. The complaint contended that various clerks had restricted access to municipal land and zoning records, resulting "in a scattershot approach to the opening of municipal land records that is highly inconsistent across the State, with access to many municipal land records not being available during reasonable or customary hours," in violation of state law. A group of 209 clerks and treasurers across the Northeast signed onto a letter by Montpelier City Clerk John Odum, writing that, "[In] the midst of the current COVID-19 pandemic, this lawsuit could have implications for the health and safety of municipal employees and members of the general public." Andy Mikell, a CATIC employee, said, "Access to the land records isn’t just critical for attorneys, it’s also critical for appraisers, surveyors, realtors, and property owners who just need access to the records to conduct property transactions … and if they are closed or reduce their hours or impose unreasonable restrictions, anybody seeking access is left without access." Judge Samuel Hoar dismissed the lawsuit from the bench, issuing no written opinion on the matter.

Virginia

Curtin v. Virginia State Board of Elections: On May 29, 2020, Judge Rossie Alston, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, rejected a challenge to Virginia's temporary expansion of absentee voting eligibility in the state's May and June elections. The state department of elections had advised local registrars that all voters could cite disability or illness as their reason for requesting absentee ballots, in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. The plaintiffs alleged that state officials had exceeded their authority in doing this and that such expansion would increase the number of votes cast unlawfully, thereby diluting the impact of votes cast lawfully. The plaintiffs requested that the court issue a preliminary injunction barring officials from implementing the policy. Alston rejected the motion: "Undermining belief in the purity of the electoral process, whether by inappropriately facilitating the participation of some or by diluting the participation of others, inherently brings us to question the sanctity of the democratic process itself. The bottom-line here is that while the basis of Plaintiffs' Complaint may be well-founded, the Court is constrained at this time from remedying these constitutional grievances."

In a statement, Attorney General Mark Herring (D) praised the ruling: "Now, Virginians will not have to make the difficult choice between keeping themselves and their loved ones safe or exercising their fundamental right to vote." The plaintiffs did not immediately comment on the outcome of their lawsuit or whether they intended to appeal.

State Board of Health v. Calabash Corp.: On August 17, 2020, the Virginia State Board of Health filed suit in the Hanover County Circuit Court, seeking to close a Mechanicsville seafood restaurant for failure to comply with COVID-19 safety requirements. In its complaint, the board argued that the restaurant, despite having its health permit suspended on July 27, 2020, had continued to operate. The board argued that a court order shuttering the restaurant was necessary because the restaurant was "operating with little to no mask usage by employees or patrons, allowed bar seating and dance floors, and has made little to no effort to comply with social distancing requirements." Commenting on the suit, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) said, "We all have a part to play in slowing the spread of COVID, and for restaurant and other business owners, that means following the safety guidelines that will help keep their employees and patrons safe and healthy." The owners of Calabash Seafood had not commented publicly on the lawsuit as of August 19, 2020.

Chase v. Republican Party of Virginia: On February 19, 2021, Judge Margaret Spencer of the Richmond Circuit Court dismissed a lawsuit that sought to force Virginia's Republican Party to conduct a primary in lieu of nominating its candidates by convention. State Sen. Amanda Chase (R), a gubernatorial candidate, filed the lawsuit, arguing that the party's plan to host a nominating convention would violate state coronavirus restrictions. With respect to the coronavirus pandemic and mitigation measures, Chase had previously said, "I don’t do COVID, by the way. I’m the only legislator in the General Assembly who does not wear a mask." Spencer ruled from the bench that Chase lacked standing to sue because she was not authorized to enforce Virginia’s COVID-19 restrictions. In response to the ruling, Chase wrote on Twitter, "Apparently the Richmond Circuit Court is going to hand the noose to the [Republican Party of Virginia] so they can go hang themselves. Sadly, the people of Virginia lost today."

Washington

Washington League for Increased Transparency and Ethics v. Fox Corporation: On May 27, 2020, Judge Brian McDonald, of Washington's King County Superior Court, dismissed a claim by the Washington League for Increased Transparency and Ethics (WASH LITE) accusing Fox News of violating consumer protection laws with its COVID-19 coverage. In its complaint, WASH LITE alleged that Fox News "willfully and maliciously engaged in a campaign of deception and omission regarding the danger of the international proliferation of [COVID-19], which was reasonably relied upon by the public." WASH LITE asserted a violation of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act, claiming Fox News deprived the public of "information necessary to prevent and mitigate transmission of the virus" and led "viewers to take unnecessary risks and ignore the dangers of the virus." In dismissing WASH LITE’s claim, McDonald said that while the "professed goal in this lawsuit – to ensure that the public receives accurate information about the coronavirus and COVID-19 – is laudable," a CPA claim against a cable news channel like Fox News, "runs afoul of the protections of the First Amendment." Following the decision, Fox News said that the lawsuit "was not only wrong, but contemptuous of the foundation of free speech." An attorney for WASH LITE indicated the group would appeal the decision.

Sehmel v. Weisman: On July 1, 2020, a group of seven Washington residents sued Secretary of Health John Weisman in Lewis County Superior Court, seeking to enjoin enforcement of Health Order 20-03, which mandated face coverings in public to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. In their complaint, the plaintiffs argued the mask requirement was arbitrary, capricious, and outside the statutory authority of the health secretary. The plaintiffs further argued masks had become so politicized that they amounted to symbolic speech; therefore, compelling the wearing of a mask "prohibits plaintiffs from expressing dissent" in violation of their right to free speech. The plaintiffs also claimed that, because they "have a fundamental right to wear the clothing of their choice and protect their own health as they see fit," the mask requirement invaded their personal autonomy in violation of their right to substantive due process. Shella Sadovnik, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said, "[The] Secretary of Health does not have sweeping power to pass rules and regulations imposing criminal penalties for refusing to kneel in submission." As of July 8, 2020, Weisman had not yet commented.

Slidewaters v. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries: On July 14, 2020, Chief Judge Thomas Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington refused to enjoin enforcement of Gov. Jay Inslee’s (D) emergency COVID-19 business restrictions. A waterpark, Slidewaters at Lake Chelan, which had been forced to shutter summer operations as a result of the restrictions, sought the injunction. In its initial motion for a temporary restraining order, the waterpark challenged Inslee’s Proclamation 20-05, proclaiming a state of emergency for all counties in Washington; Proclamation 20-25.4, a four-phase plan for reopening the state; and Department of Labor and Industries (LNI) emergency rule WAC 296-800-14035, which established mechanisms to enforce the mandatory business closures. Though the temporary restraining order was denied on June 12, 2020, the plaintiff continued to seek a preliminary injunction, arguing, "(1) Governor Inslee does not have the authority to issue the emergency proclamations; (2) LNI does not have authority to issue an emergency rule based on the governor's unlawful emergency proclamations; and (3) defendants' actions have violated plaintiffs' substantive due process rights." Rice rejected these arguments, finding that Washington law allows a governor to proclaim a state of emergency during times of disorder. Rice also ruled that LNI acted within its power to issue emergency rules based on the governor's proclamation. Lastly, Rice dismissed the plaintiff's substantive due process claim: "It is not the court's role to second-guess the reasoned public health decisions of other branches of government." The plaintiff appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On July 8, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed Rice's decision. Judge Richard Clifton, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said, "Defendants have the authority under Washington law to impose the restrictions and ... doing so does not violate Slidewaters' asserted rights under the U.S. Constitution." The Ninth Circuit found that the state's actions were rationally connected to the legitimate state interest of mitigating the spread of COVID-19.

Wilkes v. Washington State Board of Education: On August 11, 2020, three families filed suit in Washington’s Thurston County Superior Court, arguing that the state’s remote education plans, implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, denied their special needs children the right to a basic education. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Article IX, Sections 1 and 2, of the Washington Constitution, which guarantee all students a basic education, and the corresponding Basic Education Act, which requires an annual average of at least 1,000 to 1,080 instructional hours over the course of at least 180 school days. The plaintiffs argued that the state has approved instruction methods that were "inaccessible to those students with disabilities who need intense support in order to learn and make progress," thereby infringing upon their right to a basic education. Reacting to the suit, Randy Spaulding, the executive director of the State Board of Education said, "The State Board believes it has acted in a legal and appropriate manner in this difficult time of the COVID-19 pandemic."

Washington v. DeVos: On August 21, 2020, Judge Barbara Rothstein, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, granted a request by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) to block a U.S. Department of Education interim final rule regulating distribution of roughly $13.5 billion in Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) aid. In its complaint, the state argued that U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos had violated "the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), separation of powers, and the Spending Clause in the United States Constitution," by promulgating a rule "contrary to the clear, express statutory language of the CARES Act." The state further argued that the rule, if implemented, would deprive Washington’s public elementary and secondary schools from receiving emergency relief funds, as it would "either limit which public schools can use the funds, or reallocate significant funds to private schools regardless of student need." Rothstein ruled in the state's favor, finding that "private schools [would] receive a larger share of CARES Act funding than they would under a straight-forward application" of the act's poverty-based formula. Rothstein concluded that the rule "was in excess of statutory authority and not in accordance with law."

Barry v. University of Washington: On September 16, 2020, a University of Washington (UW) student filed a class-action lawsuit seeking tuition reimbursement for campus closures. In the complaint, filed in King County Superior Court, UW graduate student Alexander Barry argued that "[d]espite sending students home, transitioning to online instruction, and closing its campuses, the University of Washington continued to charge for tuition … as if nothing changed, continuing to reap the financial benefit of millions of dollars from students." In so doing, the class-action alleged UW’s "failure to provide in-person instruction and shutdown of campus facilities amounts to a material breach of the contract." The complaint argued that contract law, constitutional guarantees, and "good conscience require that the University of Washington return a portion of the monies paid in tuition and fees." In a statement, UW spokesperson Victor Balta said university officials "understand and share the frustration and disappointment that students and their families are experiencing as we navigate the unprecedented limitations presented by the COVID-19 pandemic," but declined to comment directly on the pending litigation.

West Virginia

Eden LLC v. Justice: On September 17, 2020, a joint group of businesses and the parents of public school children filed suit against West Virginia Governor Jim Justice (R) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, challenging what they called his "never-ending executive orders mandating restrictions of constitutionally protected activities." The plaintiffs alleged that Justice’s COVID-19 orders violated the U.S. Constitution’s Takings Clause and encroached on its guarantees of substantive due process, procedural due process, equal protection, freedom of assembly, and freedom of expression. The plaintiffs argued that Justice’s "actions in classifying business as 'non-essential' are arbitrary and irrational," as was his "blanket closure of private or public schools." Neither Justice nor his office had commented publicly on the suit, as of September 23, 2020.

Wisconsin

See also: Wisconsin stay-at-home order lawsuit and supreme court decision, 2020 (Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm, et al.)

Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm, et al.: On May 13, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Wisconsin Department of Health Services Secretary-designee Andrea Palm overstepped her authority when she extended the state's stay-at-home order through May 26 on behalf of Gov. Evers. The decision made Wisconsin the first state to have a stay-at-home order overruled by a court.

On April 21, 2020, the Wisconsin State Legislature filed suit in the state supreme court against Wisconsin Department of Health Services executives Andrea Palm and Julie Willems Van Dijk, alleging that they exceeded their authority in issuing Emergency Order 28, which extended the state's stay-at-home order to May 26, 2020. The legislature asked the court to enjoin the state from enforcing the stay-at-home order.

In a joint statement, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) said, "The governor has denied the people a voice through this unprecedented administrative overreach. Unfortunately, that leaves the legislature no choice but to ask the Supreme Court to rein in this obvious abuse of power. Wisconsinites deserve certainty, transparency, and a plan to end the constant stream of executive orders that are eroding both the economy and their liberty even as the state is clearly seeing a decline in COVID infections."

Governor Tony Evers (D) said, "Apparently, instead of having us act quickly and decisively to respond to a crisis, Republicans would rather have us jump through hoop after hoop and ask for their permission to save lives. Folks, we don't have time. COVID-19 will not wait."

Yang v. Powers: On July 20, 2020, Judge William Griesbach, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, dismissed a lawsuit seeking to void local COVID-19 orders enacted in Wisconsin. The local orders, which were enacted after the state supreme court voided Gov. Tony Evers' (D) statewide order, originated in various counties and cities across the state. In total, the lawsuit claimed six violations of constitutional rights, including right of assembly, exercise of religion, and equal protection. Without addressing substantive issues presented in the plaintiffs' complaint, Griesbach ruled that, because the lawsuit failed to allege coordinated action between the local officials, the case failed to properly join all the defendants into one lawsuit. Finding that the claims raised were "largely separate and distinct," and that each plaintiff was subject to different orders executed in different parts of the state, Griesbach ruled that "[e]ach of the government entities are independent of each other, and the fact that various governmental officials consulted with each other before they issued local orders in response to the pandemic does not transform their independent actions into a single transaction or occurrence." Griesbach dismissed the suit without prejudice, meaning it could be refiled. In a statement, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul (D) said, "I’m happy that this challenge to critical rules to protect public health was dismissed." Joseph Voiland, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told news outlets he was considering whether to file an amended lawsuit or appeal the dismissal.

Lindoo v. Evers: On August 25, 2020, three Wisconsin residents filed suit in Polk County Circuit Court, challenging Gov. Tony Evers' (D) authority to declare a state of emergency and impose a mask mandate. In their complaint, the plaintiffs argued that any laws that "may be necessary or appropriate to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic may not be unilaterally imposed by the Governor." Instead, the plaintiffs contended, the "state of emergency could not be lawfully extended beyond 60 days unless the Legislature, by joint resolution, approved of such an extension." The plaintiffs argued that Executive Order #82, which was issued in July and extended the public health emergency, and the subsequent mask mandate, exceeded constitutional and statutory authority and were "void because the legislature has not agreed to an extension of the Public Health Emergency due to COVID-19." Britt Cudaback, a spokeswoman for Evers, characterized the lawsuit as a Republican effort to "prevent the governor from keeping Wisconsinites healthy and safe." Rick Esenberg, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said, "[This] lawsuit is about our system of government and the rule of law."

Newman v. Evers: On September 17, 2020, a Wisconsin poll worker who was fired from his position after refusing to wear a mask sued his local city clerk and Gov. Tony Evers (D) in the La Crosse County Circuit Court. In his complaint, poll worker Nicholas Newman asked the court to declare as unlawful Evers' Executive Order No. 82 and Emergency Order No. 1, which declared a public health emergency and mandated masks statewide, respectively. Newman argued that Evers' mask mandate exceeded "his statutory and constitutional power, and is therefore unlawful, void and unenforceable." Newman also argued that the order exempted him from wearing a face covering, as he "is an individual who has trouble breathing" and "also has a medical condition which makes it dangerous for him to wear a mask for an extended period of time." When asked for comment, a spokesperson for Evers said "that masks can save lives, and Gov. Evers continues to ask everyone to do their part to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 by wearing a mask." The case was assigned to Judge Ramona A. Gonzalez.

Tavern League of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Palm: On October 14, 2020, Judge John Martin Yackel, of Wisconsin’s Sawyer County Circuit Court, temporarily blocked emergency indoor capacity restrictions issued in response to an uptick in Covid-19 infections across the state. Upon Governor Tony Evers’ (D) direction, Wisconsin Health Secretary Andrea Palm issued Emergency Order #3, limiting indoor public gatherings to no more than 25 percent capacity, with certain limitations. In its complaint, the Tavern League of Wisconsin argued Executive Order #3 "purports to regulate businesses and public gatherings in a manner nearly identical to portions of Emergency Order #28," which was struck down by the Wisconsin Supreme Court on May 13, 2020. In his order, Yackel wrote that Evers and his administration "are immediately restrained, until further order from the Court, from enforcing Emergency Order #3."

On October 19, 2020, Judge James Babler, of Wisconsin’s Barron County Circuit Court, declined to block state officials from enforcing Emergency Order #3. Finding that the Tavern League and other plaintiffs had failed to meet the standard of irreparable harm necessary for an injunction, Babler said, "I merely have the theoretical issue that if they were to comply, they would suffer harm," adding, "I don’t see how anyone has been harmed by the order ... because no one has told me they changed their behavior" after it was issued. Babler said, "I beg the Supreme Court for clarity because should this issue be decided by them, trial judges need to know how they need to rule." Babler issued his ruling orally from the bench. An excerpt of that order can be viewed here.

Fabick v. Evers: On March 31, 2021, the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down the state's COVID-19-related public health emergency orders and mask mandate. The court ruled that, while the plain language of state statutes permitted the governor to "act with expanded powers to address a particular emergency" for 60 days, "the legislature reserves for itself the power to determine the policies that govern the state’s response to an ongoing problem" after those 60 days. The court also ruled that "when the legislature revokes a state of emergency, a governor may not simply reissue another one on the same basis." The state supreme court issued a similar order in May 2020, striking down Governor Tony Evers' (D) "Safer at Home" emergency order. The decision did not extend to local governments, which remained free to implement their own virus-related restrictions. In response to the decision, Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R) said that it "vindicates the Legislature as a co-equal branch of government and will expand freedom and opportunity for the people of Wisconsin." After the court issued its decision, Evers said, "I’ve worked to keep Wisconsinites healthy and safe, and I’ve trusted the science and public health experts to guide our decision making." Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote the majority opinion, in which Chief Justice Patience Roggensack and Justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley joined. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, joined by Justices Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky, dissented.

Multiple states

In re: American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations: On June 11, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied an emergency petition filed by the AFL-CIO. The labor union had sought a court order (a writ of mandamus) to compel the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to issue an Emergency Temporary Standard for Infectious Diseases (ETS) to protect working people from occupational exposure to COVID-19. The AFL-CIO had first petitioned Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia on March 6, 2020, to issue the ETS, but Scalia did not act on the petition, prompting the AFL-CIO to take the matter before the D.C. Circuit. The labor union cited a federal law requiring issuance of an ETS when "employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards." The D.C. Circuit refused to compel action, saying that OSHA is "entitled to considerable deference" and the agency had "reasonably determined that an ETS is not necessary at this time." The per curiam decision was made by Judges Karen Henderson, an appointee of George H.W. Bush (R), Robert Leon Wilkins, an appointee of Barack Obama (D), and Neomi Rao, an appointee of Donald J. Trump (R). AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka issued a statement the day of the decision, saying, "the court’s action today fell woefully short of fulfilling its duty to ensure that the Occupational Safety and Health Act is enforced.”

Michigan v. DeVos: On July 7, 2020, Michigan, California, the District of Columbia, Maine, New Mexico, and Wisconsin sued U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, arguing that the U.S. Department of Education had unlawfully and erroneously interpreted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). In their complaint, the plaintiffs claimed the CARES Act "directs states to distribute CARES Act funds to local educational agencies" in proportion to "the number of children who are economically disadvantaged," in accordance with Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The plaintiffs argued that, counter to congressional intent, the department's allocation of the $30.75 billion earmarked for schools had been based on the total number of all students—public and private—regardless of economic disadvantage. Therefore, the plaintiffs argued, the department "deprives low-income and at-risk students, their teachers, and the public schools that serve them of critical resources to meet students’ educational and social-emotional needs during and after pandemic-related school closures." When asked about the lawsuit, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) said, “This isn't how it should work. This is a virus that has had a disproportionate impact on low-income students and communities of color. Schools in these areas deserve a government that will support them throughout this crisis." U.S. Department of Education Press Secretary Angela Morabito said, "The secretary has said many times, this pandemic affected all students, and the CARES Act requires that funding should be used to help all students."

United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 227 v. United States Department of Agriculture: On July 28, 2020, a group of unions representing workers at multiple poultry processing plants filed suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, citing safety concerns spurred by increased processing demands resulting, in part, from the COVID-19 pandemic. The suit sought to set aside a waiver program implemented by the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) in 2018. That waiver program authorized bird processing line speed to rise to a level the unions argued "could increase risk of injuries and illnesses among establishment employees." According to the unions, though FSIS adopted a rule in 2014 capping the processing speed of poultry plants to 140 birds per minute, the challenged waiver program "now permits nearly 43 percent of all plants subject to that regulation to operate at 175 [birds per minute]." Beyond increased safety concerns at the higher processing rate, the unions alleged FSIS adopted the waiver program in violation of notice-and-comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). A spokeswoman for the USDA declined to discuss the lawsuit, telling reporters the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

Robert v. Austin: On September 1, 2021, Judge Raymond P. Moore, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, declined to suspend the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) COVID-19 vaccine mandate for active duty, National Guard, and Reserve service members, pending proceedings in a legal challenge to the mandate. The mandate directed "the Secretaries of the Military Departments to immediately begin full vaccination of all members of the Armed Forces ... subject to any identified contraindications” and existing military policies. An Army drill sergeant and a Marine Corps air traffic controller, who said that they were naturally immune as the result of previous COVID-19 infections, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to suspend enforcement of the mandate. The pair argued that "the DoD [could not] force them to take a COVID-19 vaccination under existing military regulations, federal regulations, federal law, and the U.S. Constitution.” The pair also argued that the mandate violated the Administrative Procedures Act, servicemembers’ right to informed consent, and the Nuremberg Code.

See also

• Documenting America's Path to Recovery
• COVID-19 vaccine distribution
• Coronavirus (COVID-19) travel restrictions
• Officeholders and candidates diagnosed with, dead from, or quarantined because of coronavirus
• Federal government responses to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic
• School responses to the coronavirus (COVID-19 pandemic
• Recalls related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) and government responses to the pandemic

Footnotes