Big Tyme Investments v. Edwards, 985 F.3d 456

In July 2020 Louisiana Governor Edwards issued a proclamation (the “Bar Closure Order”) closing on-premises consumption at "bars" while permitting dine-in service at "restaurants" (with differing capacity and gating rules).
The distinction in practice turned on state liquor permits administered by the ATC: Class A-General (AG) for bars and Class A-Restaurant (AR) for restaurants (and conditional AR permits).
Twenty-one bar owners operating with AG permits sued, seeking preliminary injunctions to enjoin enforcement of the Bar Closure Order; two district courts denied relief after expedited evidentiary hearings relying on public-health testimony.
The bar owners appealed only the Equal Protection claim, arguing the permit-based differential classification is irrational and thus unconstitutional.
The State argued (and presented expert public-health testimony) that bars present higher COVID-19 transmission risks (socializing, loud music, younger patrons, intoxication) and that the classification is rationally related to protecting public health.
The Fifth Circuit denied the State’s mootness motion (Phase changes preserved the challenged differential) and affirmed the denials of preliminary injunctions, applying Jacobson/Abbott principles and rational-basis review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of appeal after Phase changes	Spell mootness precedent inapplicable; Phase 3 still differentiates bars and restaurants so claim remains live	Challenged order expired and subsequent proclamations allow reopening, so appeal is moot	Not moot: later proclamations retained the same fundamental differential treatment; relief still possible
Whether the Bar Closure Order violates Equal Protection by treating AG (bars) and AR (restaurants) differently	Classification is arbitrary/pretextual; Governor disavowed permit-based intent so distinction is illegitimate	Classification is rationally related to public-health goal because AG venues primarily serve alcohol, encourage socializing, and raise transmission risk; AR venues are meal-focused	Affirmed for State: classification passes rational-basis review; plausible public-health justifications exist
Applicability of Jacobson/Abbott to the challenge and standard of review	Jacobson/Abbott do not govern equal protection challenges or do not lower the appropriate scrutiny	Jacobson/Abbott govern review of emergency public-health measures; here only rational-basis review applies	Jacobson/Abbott apply to emergency measures generally; court applied ordinary rational-basis review and found no constitutional violation

Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (upholding state public-health regulation during epidemic; test whether measures bear a real or substantial relation to public health and are not a plain, palpable invasion of rights)
In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 2020) (applies Jacobson framework to COVID-19 orders and explains deferential review in pandemic context)
FCC v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (rational-basis review: any conceivable rational basis suffices)
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (equal protection principle that similarly situated persons must be treated alike)
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (Supreme Court emphasizing constitutional review of pandemic restrictions and deference to public-health judgments, but applying ordinary constitutional tests)
Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) (classification will survive if plausible and not irrational)