470 F.Supp.3d 1133
D. Haw.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (two California homeowners, one Nevada homeowner, and a Hawaii resident) sued Governor David Ige seeking a TRO to enjoin enforcement of Hawaii’s 14‑day COVID‑19 quarantine and related emergency proclamations. Plaintiffs say quarantines prevent travel, property maintenance, work, and family visits.
- Governor Ige issued successive emergency proclamations beginning March 2020: interstate and later interisland 14‑day quarantines, a stay‑at‑home order, phased reopenings, and a trans‑Pacific pre‑testing program scheduled for Aug. 1.
- State health officials (Hawaii State Epidemiologist Dr. Sarah Park and HI‑EMA Dr. Steven Hankins) submitted declarations that the quarantine and other measures were intended to prevent importation/spread of COVID‑19, match the virus’s incubation period, preserve hospital capacity, and slow transmission.
- Plaintiffs raised Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims: right to travel, substantive and procedural due process, and equal protection. They sought temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief.
- The court applied the Jacobson framework (and Winter injunction standards), declined to resolve standing at that interlocutory stage, and denied the TRO/application on the merits and public‑interest/balance‑of‑equities grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Jacobson / likelihood of success on the merits | No emergency exists; proclamations are unconstitutional | Public‑health emergency exists; proclamations relate to preventing importation/spread and preserving healthcare capacity | Jacobson applies; proclamations bear a real/substantial relation to public health; plaintiffs fail to show likelihood of success or "serious questions" warranting relief |
| Right to travel | 14‑day quarantine unlawfully burdens interstate travel (invoking Fifth Amendment) | Quarantine is a neutral, temporary restriction equally applied to residents and non‑residents and narrowly tailored to public health needs | Fifth Amendment inapplicable to state action; under Fourteenth and even strict scrutiny the quarantine survives; travel claim fails |
| Due process (substantive & procedural) | Proclamations deprive liberty (house arrest, earn a living) and provide no pre‑ or post‑deprivation process | Emergency health measures permit summary action; general notice suffices for statewide orders; measures are not total confinement for non‑quarantined persons | Plaintiffs unlikely to prevail; substantive due‑process claim fails under Jacobson/strict scrutiny analysis; procedural due process not triggered for statewide emergency proclamations |
| Equal protection; irreparable harm; balance of equities/public interest | Arbitrary essential/non‑essential classifications and quarantine cause irreparable constitutional harm to plaintiffs | Public health and preservation of healthcare system outweigh plaintiffs’ private inconveniences; injunction would harm public interest | Plaintiffs do not show irreparable harm; balance of equities and public interest weigh heavily against injunctive relief; TRO denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (states may impose public‑health restraints during epidemics; courts defer to reasonable health measures)
- South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring) (judicial deference to state public‑health decisions during COVID‑19)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for preliminary injunctions)
- Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) (constitutional right to travel and its components)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (procedural due‑process balancing test)
- Halverson v. Skagit County, 42 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 1994) (general notice sufficient for statewide emergency actions)