Fox Fire Tavern, LLC v. Pritzker
161 N.E.3d 1190
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- In response to rising COVID-19 metrics the Governor issued successive disaster proclamations beginning March 9, 2020, and on October 21, 2020 issued Executive Order 2020‑61 (EO61) imposing additional restrictions (e.g., suspend indoor dining, 11 p.m.‑6 a.m. curfew, outdoor seating rules) for regions including Kane County.
- Fox Fire Tavern (FoxFire) filed a verified complaint and emergency petition (Oct. 23–26, 2020) seeking declaratory relief and a TRO to block enforcement of EO61 against it.
- The Kane County circuit court granted the TRO, concluding the Governor lacked authority to issue successive disaster proclamations and that FoxFire showed likelihood of success on the merits.
- The State appealed. On appeal the court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and the TRO for abuse of discretion.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act and subsequent legislation permit successive gubernatorial disaster proclamations and that EO61 did not suspend statutory quarantine/closure procedures under the Department of Public Health Act. The TRO was dissolved and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to issue successive disaster proclamations under IEMA §7 | Governor’s emergency power limited to a single 30‑day proclamation; cannot renew consecutively for the same ongoing disaster | §7 grants 30‑day powers per proclamation and contains no bar to successive proclamations; other statutory provisions and later legislative amendments contemplate successive proclamations | Reversed: Governor may issue successive proclamations; trial court erred in finding otherwise |
| Whether EO61 suspended Dept. of Public Health Act §2(c) (quarantine/closure requiring consent or court order) and needed a showing that strict compliance would hinder response | Governor had to show strict compliance with §2(c) would prevent/hinder action before suspending it under IEMA §7 | EO61 did not suspend §2(c) because its measures were operational restrictions, not quarantine/isolation or full business‑closure orders; thus no §2(c) suspension showing required | Held: EO61 did not suspend §2(c); no prerequisite showing was needed for EO61’s measures |
| Whether plaintiff established likelihood of success (TRO standard) | FoxFire argued likelihood of success based on the Governor’s alleged lack of authority and irreparable injury to business | Defendants argued plaintiffs raised no fair question as to the Governor’s statutory authority and thus failed the merits element for injunctive relief | Held: FoxFire failed to show likelihood of success on the merits; TRO improperly granted and was dissolved |
| Procedural: admissibility of State’s oversized memorandum and unsupported factual references | FoxFire sought to strike State’s brief for exceeding page/word limits and to exclude media/website facts not in the record | State asked leave to file oversized brief instanter; defended factual recitations | Court declined to strike the brief (granted leave) but disregarded unsupported factual references not in the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradford v. Wynstone Prop. Owners’ Ass’n, 355 Ill. App. 3d 736 (review of TRO abuse‑of‑discretion)
- Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C., 225 Ill. 2d 52 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Midstate Siding & Window Co. v. Rogers, 204 Ill. 2d 314 (distinguishing legal/statutory questions from discretionary review)
- Landis v. Marc Realty, L.L.C., 235 Ill. 2d 1 (plain‑meaning rule and legislative intent)
- Van Dyke v. White, 2019 IL 121452 (statutes read in context; avoid reading limitations into unambiguous text)
- People ex rel. Barmore v. Robertson, 302 Ill. 422 (courts should not substitute policy judgments for reasonableness of public‑health measures)
- Cassell v. Snyders, 458 F. Supp. 3d 981 (restrictions on gatherings differ from quarantine/closure orders)