460 F.Supp.3d 202
D. Conn.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Michael Amato and Joy Monsanto operate 50’s Lounge, LLC, a New Haven restaurant/bar that hosted events; they voluntarily closed the business on March 15, 2020.
- Plaintiffs sued Governor Ned Lamont and Mayor Justin Elicker seeking a TRO and preliminary injunction to enjoin: Mayor Elicker’s ten-person gathering ban, Governor Lamont’s restaurant on‑premises closure/order limiting restaurants to off‑premises service (Executive Order 7D), and the Governor’s limits on gatherings (ultimately Executive Order 7N limiting social/recreational gatherings to five people).
- The court applied the TRO/PI factors (irreparable harm, likelihood of success, balance of equities/public interest) and a heightened showing of likelihood of success because the relief sought was a mandatory injunction.
- The court treated the pandemic orders as emergency public‑health measures and applied Jacobson deference to state actions during epidemics.
- The Court denied the TRO/PI: the Mayor’s ten‑person challenge was moot; the challenge to Executive Order 7D failed for lack of standing and no demonstrated irreparable harm; the challenges to Executive Order 7N failed because Jacobson/First Amendment analysis did not show a clear likelihood of success.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of Mayor Elicker’s ten‑person order | Elicker’s limit unlawfully restricts assembly and should be enjoined | Ten‑person order was superseded by Governor’s statewide five‑person order (7N) | Moot; challenge denied on that ground |
| Standing to challenge EO 7D (restaurant on‑premises restriction) | EO 7D cut off Plaintiffs’ revenue and prevents them from earning a living | Plaintiffs voluntarily closed before EO 7D; restaurants could still sell off‑premises | No standing: loss traced to voluntary March 15 closure and EO 7D not shown to be redressable |
| Irreparable harm from EO 7D (financial injury) | Loss of revenue will force layoffs and possible permanent closure | Financial injuries are compensable; no showing of imminent permanent closure or intent to reopen if enjoined | No clear irreparable harm; money damages adequate; injunction denied |
| First Amendment challenge to EO 7N (gatherings limit) | Five‑person limit unlawfully burdens assembly/association rights | Order is a content‑neutral public‑health measure with real relation to epidemic response; Jacobson deference applies | Likelihood of success not shown; Jacobson and traditional First Amendment tests permit the restriction; TRO/PI denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1905) (courts must defer to public‑health measures unless they lack real relation to health or are a plain, palpable invasion of rights).
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1976) (loss of First Amendment freedoms, even briefly, can constitute irreparable injury).
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (time, place, manner test for content‑neutral restrictions).
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (court need not accept conclusory allegations).
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2013) (Article III requires live case or controversy; mootness doctrine).
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2013) (standing requires concrete, particularized, imminent or certainly impending injury).
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (U.S. 2014) (allegation of future injury may suffice if certainly impending or substantial risk).
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2009) (balance of equities and public interest merge when government is opposing party).
- Otoe‑Missouria Tribe of Indians v. New York State Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 769 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2014) (heightened injunction standard when challenging governmental action in public interest).
- Phillips v. City of New York, 775 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2015) (Jacobson forecloses certain constitutional challenges to mandatory public‑health requirements).
- Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of City of New York, 331 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2003) (discussing when irreparable harm may be presumed in First Amendment cases).
- Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2008) (assuming irreparable harm for First Amendment claim when addressing likelihood of success).