517 F.Supp.3d 732
M.D. Tenn.2021Background
- Plaintiffs (two Jonathan’s Grille entities) sued Metro Nashville officials challenging Health Director Order 12's curfew and occupancy limits on restaurants imposed during the COVID‑19 pandemic.
- Order 12 and successor amended orders limited restaurant capacity and imposed closing times for restaurants that serve alcohol; similar restrictions on gyms and outdoor protests were treated differently over time.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief alleging violations of substantive due process and equal protection under the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing claims were moot and, on the merits, the orders survive under Jacobson/traditional review and rational‑basis scrutiny.
- The court held the challenges were not moot (capable of repetition) but applied traditional constitutional review (rational basis) and dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim; Tennessee‑law claims were abandoned and dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness | Challenge to Order 12 seeks injunctive relief; Order 12 changed, so claim remains live because restrictions may recur | Order 12 expired/replaced; relief as to that specific order is moot | Not moot — capable of repetition yet evading review; successor orders contain substantially same restrictions |
| Applicable standard (Jacobson v. Massachusetts) | Pandemic context warrants Jacobson deference to public‑health orders | Jacobson governs and is deferential; alternatively traditional review applies | Court applies traditional constitutional tests but concludes rational‑basis review controls here (Jacobson not outcome‑determinative) |
| Substantive due process | Curfew and capacity limits deprive restaurants of liberty/property and a fundamental right to pursue a business | No fundamental right is implicated; orders survive rational‑basis as aimed at reducing virus spread | Plaintiffs do not allege a fundamental right; rational‑basis applies and plaintiffs failed to negate any conceivable basis; claim dismissed |
| Equal protection | Restaurants were singled out and treated worse than gyms/protests without a rational basis | Distinctions are rational: indoor vs outdoor, maskability, social distancing, alcohol consumption | Rational‑basis review applies; court can conceive plausible justifications; equal protection claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (permitting public‑health measures that bear a "real or substantial relation" to protecting public health)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (applying traditional scrutiny to COVID restrictions and recognizing capable‑of‑repetition mootness concerns)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards: plausibility required to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard and plausibility framework)
- Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (mootness exception: capable of repetition yet evading review)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (standing/mootness principles relevant to ongoing harms)
- American Exp. Travel Related Servs. Co. v. Kentucky, 641 F.3d 685 (6th Cir.) (under rational‑basis, challengers must negate every conceivable basis for the government action)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (test for identifying fundamental substantive‑due‑process rights)