486 F.Supp.3d 883
W.D. Pa.2020Background
- In March 2020 Gov. Wolf declared a disaster emergency and issued orders closing "non-life-sustaining" businesses (Mar. 19) and a stay-at-home order (Mar. 23→Apr.1 statewide); a phased reopening followed but original orders were described as "suspended" not rescinded.
- July 15, 2020 targeted-mitigation order set numeric gathering limits: 25 persons indoors, 250 outdoors; exemptions and disparate treatment (e.g., large commercial events) occurred in practice.
- Plaintiffs: four counties (County Plaintiffs), several state/federal elected officials (Political Plaintiffs), and various small businesses (Business Plaintiffs); counties were dismissed for lack of §1983 standing because they are creations of the State.
- The court conducted an expedited evidentiary hearing (July 17 & 22, 2020) with testimony about how policy teams made ad hoc classifications of "life-sustaining" businesses and closed the waiver process.
- The court declined to apply heightened Jacobson deference and instead used ordinary constitutional scrutiny given the open-ended nature of restrictions and the judiciary’s role as a check on emergency power.
- Rulings: (1) gathering limits violate the First Amendment; (2) stay-at-home lockdowns violate substantive due process; (3) business-closure scheme violates substantive due process and the Equal Protection Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| County standing under §1983 | Counties can sue for harms from orders | Counties are state creations and lack §1983 rights against their creator | County Plaintiffs dismissed (no §1983 standing) |
| Standard of review for emergency health measures | Apply ordinary constitutional scrutiny | Apply deferential Jacobson rule | Ordinary scrutiny applies (Jacobson not dispositive) |
| Gathering limits (First Amendment) | Numeric caps (25/250) burden assembly and campaign activity; selective exemptions show uneven treatment | Rules are content-neutral mitigation, leave alternative channels open | Intermediate scrutiny; limits not narrowly tailored; gathering limits unconstitutional |
| Stay-at-home orders (substantive due process) | Lockdown involuntarily confines all residents, infringes travel/movement and association rights | Orders were necessary mitigation in emergency; now suspended so moot | Orders are reviewable (voluntary cessation); lockdowns unconstitutional as not narrowly tailored under substantive due process |
| Business closures (substantive due process) | Designation "life-sustaining" vs "non-life-sustaining" was arbitrary, no objective definition, waiver process closed; deprived right to work | Measures were temporary emergency economic regulation rationally related to public health | Business-closure scheme violated substantive due process as arbitrary and not rationally justified |
| Business closures (equal protection) | Similarly situated businesses treated differently (small retailers closed while big-box sellers of same goods remained open) | Regional distinctions and economic regulation are rationally related to health goals | Classification into life/non-life-sustaining lacked rational basis; Equal Protection violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (recognized state police power in public-health emergencies but cautioned courts may enjoin arbitrary or oppressive regulations)
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (constitutional protections endure in emergencies; modern framework for scrutiny analysis)
- De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937) (First Amendment assembly protections incorporated against the States)
- Lutz v. City of York, 899 F.2d 255 (3d Cir. 1990) (Third Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny to intrastate travel/time-place-manner restrictions)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (content-neutral time, place, manner test requires narrow tailoring to significant government interest)
- Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988) (narrow-tailoring principle: statute must target no more than the exact source of the evil)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (due process protects individuals against arbitrary government action)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (rational-basis limits: classifications must not be arbitrary or irrational)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) ("class-of-one" equal protection framework)
- Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934) (Constitution applies in emergencies; limits on emergency powers)