542 F.Supp.3d 1245
M.D. Ala.2021Background
- Plaintiffs (church leaders, congregants, a chiropractor, and barber-shop owners) sued Alabama Governor Kay Ivey and State Health Officer Dr. Scott Harris over COVID-19 proclamations and health orders issued in 2020–2021, seeking injunctive relief and money damages.
- Key statewide actions: March–April 2020 emergency declarations and orders limiting gatherings and closing "non-essential" businesses (including close-contact services); March 27 order capped nonwork gatherings at 10; April 3 Stay‑at‑Home limited in‑person worship (9 people/6‑ft rule or drive‑in service exception); May 8 and later orders eased restrictions; July 15, 2020 added a statewide mask mandate with enumerated exceptions; April 7, 2021 "Safer Apart" order rescinded the mask mandate and social‑distancing gathering limits.
- Plaintiffs asserted eight constitutional claims (void‑for‑vagueness; Establishment; Free Exercise; assembly/expressive association; substantive due process; takings; Contracts Clause; state separation‑of‑powers) and moved for a preliminary injunction.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of standing/mootness for expired provisions, Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity (official‑capacity damages), qualified immunity (individual‑capacity damages), and failure to state viable constitutional claims.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss in full: plaintiffs lacked standing for retrospective injunctive claims and for some plaintiffs’ takings/contracts claims; prospective injunctive claims were moot after the Safer Apart order; Eleventh Amendment barred official‑capacity damages; and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the asserted constitutional claims. The preliminary injunction motion was denied as moot and the case dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek injunctive relief for provisions that expired before filing | Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief against closures/stay‑at‑home provisions that had been enforced earlier | Expired provisions were not in effect when suit was filed, so injunctive relief cannot redress past harms | Dismissed for lack of standing (injunctive relief not redressable) |
| Standing for Porter’s takings and Contracts Clause claims | Porter claimed business losses and cancelled memberships caused by orders | Porter’s losses resulted from third‑party decisions (patients), not direct government action | Dismissed for lack of standing (no traceability) |
| Mootness of prospective injunctive claims (mask, social‑distancing, worship limits) | Plaintiffs argued measures could be reinstated and are capable of repetition yet evading review | Defendants replaced prior orders with Safer Apart rescinding challenged provisions; government repeal is presumptively reliable and there is no concrete expectation of reenactment | Prospective injunctive claims are moot; exceptions (voluntary cessation, capable‑of‑repetition) rejected |
| Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity for official‑capacity damages | Plaintiffs sought money damages from state officials in official capacities | Money damages against officials are effectively suits against the State and barred by the Eleventh Amendment | Official‑capacity money claims dismissed with prejudice (Eleventh Amendment) |
| Qualified immunity for individual‑capacity damages (Free Exercise / Establishment / Assembly) | Plaintiffs alleged religious discrimination and unequal treatment of worship vs secular activities | Defendants acted under emergency/discretionary authority; even if rights were burdened, the law was not clearly established at the time (early pandemic uncertainty); restrictions later eased | Defendants entitled to qualified immunity; those claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Takings / Contracts / Substantive due process merits | Farr/Ervin: temporary closure denied all economically viable use; Case: parental right infringed by mask rule | Temporary regulatory closures are not per se Lucas takings; Contracts Clause accommodates reasonable, temporary impairments for public health; substantive‑due‑process economic/parental claims fail (no fundamental right or conscience‑shocking conduct) | Claims fail on the merits; qualified immunity applies; takings not per se, Contracts Clause not violated, substantive due process dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal‑sufficiency standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing elements and redressability)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167 (standing must be shown for each form of relief)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (religious‑activity restrictions and Free Exercise analysis during COVID‑19)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (Eleventh Amendment bars suits seeking relief based on state law violations)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (neutrality and general applicability in Free Exercise cases)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (Establishment Clause test applied)
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (per se regulatory takings rule)
- Tahoe‑Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (temporary regulatory prohibitions not necessarily per se takings)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (multi‑factor takings analysis)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (deference to public‑health measures in emergencies)