BAYLEY'S CAMPGROUND INC v. MILLS, 463 F.Supp.3d 22

Background

In April 2020 Maine Governor Janet Mills issued Executive Order 34 requiring any person entering Maine to self-quarantine for 14 days; violations expose individuals to criminal penalties and regulatory enforcement.
A subsequent Restarting Plan (EO 49) staged reopenings: lodging/campgrounds limited to Maine residents or out‑of‑state visitors who have completed the 14‑day in‑state quarantine; a separate Rural Reopening Plan opened some rural counties earlier.
Plaintiffs are Maine lodging businesses and three individuals (two New Hampshire residents and one Maine resident who travels) who seek to admit/outbound travel without the 14‑day in‑state quarantine and challenge the Rural Plan’s differential treatment.
The State defended the measures on public‑health grounds: COVID‑19 can be spread asymptomatically, testing capacity and immunity knowledge were limited, and Maine’s health resources were vulnerable to a large summer influx.
Plaintiffs moved for an expedited preliminary injunction to enjoin the quarantine and related restrictions; the court balanced constitutional travel and due‑process claims against public‑health justifications and denied the injunction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to interstate travel (Count I)	14‑day quarantine unlawfully burdens the fundamental right to travel and must meet strict scrutiny; it is not narrowly tailored and excludes many travelers (including recovered persons).	The quarantine is a public‑health measure justified under Jacobson; deference is owed during a pandemic and the 14‑day rule relates to incubation and risk mitigation.	Court: The order does burden the right to travel, but plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success—given public‑health evidence and lack of clear, less‑restrictive workable alternatives—so injunction denied.
Procedural due process (Count II)	Quarantine is imposed without individualized process or a hearing; plaintiffs lack a mechanism to contest enforcement before criminal penalties.	Emergency public‑health action can be summary; due process in emergencies permits delayed or post‑deprivation review and the State provides education/enforcement rather than routine criminal prosecution.	Court: Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed; emergency context allows summary administrative measures and no showing that meaningful post‑deprivation review is unavailable.
Irreparable harm from injunction denial	Loss of summer revenue and restriction of fundamental travel rights constitute irreparable injury.	Lifting the quarantine risks public health and could overwhelm Maine’s healthcare capacity; public interest weighs heavily toward containment.	Court: Plaintiffs have shown real harms, but not yet irreparable to the degree that outweighs public‑health risks; factor does not support injunction.
Balance of equities & public interest	Economic and constitutional harms to plaintiffs; public interest in reopening commerce.	Public‑health protection, preservation of hospital capacity, and deference to state emergency policymaking.	Court: Equities and public interest tip in favor of the State given the pandemic uncertainties; injunction denied.

Key Cases Cited

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (upholding state public‑health mandate and discussing judicial deference during epidemics)
Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) (articulating modern framework for the constitutional right to travel)
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) (right to travel decisions and strict scrutiny precedent)
Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) (freedom to travel as a basic constitutional right)
Attorney Gen. of N.Y. v. Soto‑Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986) (right to enter and abide in a State; travel‑related protections)
Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) (prohibition on a State isolating itself from interstate movement of persons)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (discussion of tiered scrutiny and constitutional limits despite state interests)