635 S.W.3d 788
Ky.2021Background
- In March 2020 the Governor declared a COVID-19 state of emergency and CHFS issued multiple executive orders and administrative regulations restricting in‑person dining and other business operations.
- In early 2021 the General Assembly enacted (over the Governor’s veto) several laws (H.B.1, S.B.1, S.B.2, and H.B.3) that curtailed the Governor’s emergency powers and altered venue rules for constitutional challenges.
- Goodwood Brewing and related businesses sued the Governor and CHFS officials in Scott Circuit Court seeking declaratory relief and a temporary injunction enjoining enforcement (and future issuance) of numerous COVID‑related executive orders and CHFS regulations.
- The trial court denied the Governor’s request to hold an evidentiary hearing with witnesses, held only argument, and entered a temporary injunction enjoining enforcement of many specifically enumerated orders against Goodwood.
- The Court of Appeals stayed that injunction and transferred review to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which vacated the injunction because the trial court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing; the Supreme Court also held the injunction issues moot because the enjoined orders were largely rescinded and no mootness exception applied; declaratory claims were remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied an evidentiary hearing before issuing a temporary injunction | Goodwood: only legal questions; oral argument sufficient | Governor: needed to call witnesses and present evidence on public interest and likelihood of harm | Court: denying evidentiary hearing was an abuse of discretion when facts were disputed; evidentiary hearings with testimony are preferred; injunction vacated |
| Whether a temporary injunction enjoining enforcement of numerous COVID orders was proper | Goodwood: injunction required to prevent immediate, irreparable harm and preserve rights | Governor: injunction would harm public interest and required factual findings on health risks | Court: did not adjudicate merits; vacated injunction due to inadequate hearing |
| Whether the Supreme Court should remand for a new evidentiary hearing or dismiss as moot | Goodwood: seeks relief against enforcement and to amend injunction re EO 2020‑215 | Governor: most enjoined orders were rescinded (EO 2021‑386); no live controversy | Court: issues surrounding the temporary injunction are moot because orders were rescinded; decline to remand for new injunction hearing; declaratory claims remain and were remanded |
| Whether mootness exceptions apply (collateral consequences, voluntary cessation, capable of repetition, public interest) | Goodwood: exceptions preserve review | Governor: exceptions do not apply given changed legal/factual landscape and new statutes limiting future similar action | Court: none of the exceptions apply; voluntary cessation standard not met; no collateral consequences, no reasonable expectation of same action recurring, public‑interest exception fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Beshear v. Acree, 615 S.W.3d 780 (Ky. 2020) (upheld Governor’s emergency powers under KRS Chapter 39A and framed the governing legal standard for COVID orders)
- Sims v. Greene, 161 F.2d 87 (3d Cir. 1947) (preliminary injunctions require notice and opportunity to present evidence)
- Visual Scis., Inc. v. Integrated Commc’ns Inc., 660 F.2d 56 (2d Cir. 1981) (when essential facts are disputed, a hearing with cross‑examination and evidence is required)
- Rosario‑Urdaz v. Rivera‑Hernandez, 350 F.3d 219 (1st Cir. 2003) (vacatur where court had no evidentiary record supporting preliminary‑injunction ruling)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2000) (stringent standard for voluntary cessation mootness exception)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1998) (collateral‑consequences principle preserving appeals despite cessation in limited circumstances)
- Kentucky High Sch. Athletic Ass’n v. Edwards, 256 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2008) (temporary injunctions require notice and a hearing)
- Maupin v. Stansbury, 575 S.W.2d 695 (Ky. App. 1978) (elements and equitable considerations for issuing a temporary injunction)
- Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94 (Ky. 2014) (Kentucky courts should not issue advisory opinions; discussion of mootness doctrine)