37 F.4th 1365
8th Cir.2022Background
- In March 2020 Minnesota Governor Tim Walz declared a peacetime emergency and issued executive orders (EOs) closing or restricting non‑critical businesses and imposing capacity limits to address COVID‑19.
- Appellants (owners of an indoor mini‑golf, a hair salon, and a cards & gifts store) alleged financial losses from the EOs and sued Governor Walz and the Minnesota Attorney General, asserting an Equal Protection claim (seeking declaratory and injunctive relief) and a Takings Clause claim (seeking damages from Walz individually).
- The district court dismissed the federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6), granted sovereign immunity for official‑capacity monetary claims, allowed official‑capacity injunctive/declaratory relief to proceed, and granted qualified immunity to Walz in his individual capacity.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit considered (a) whether the equal protection claim seeking declaratory/injunctive relief was moot, and (b) whether Walz was entitled to qualified immunity on the takings claim.
- The court held the equal protection claim moot because EO 20‑74 and related restrictions had expired and appellants failed to show the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception applied.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the takings claim on qualified immunity grounds, finding the law was not clearly established in 2020 that such public‑health EOs constituted a compensable taking or that an official could be personally liable for it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of Equal Protection claim | Walz’s EOs unlawfully discriminated and plaintiffs seek declaratory/injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of EO 20‑74 and successors | EOs have expired, restrictions lapsed, and relief would be purely advisory; no reasonable expectation of repetition | Claim is moot; plaintiffs failed to show the exception (capable of repetition yet evading review) applies |
| Takings claim / Qualified immunity | EOs effectively deprived businesses of use of property—per se or regulatory taking—entitling owners to compensation and waiver of immunity | Even if a taking occurred, the law was not clearly established in 2020 that these EOs constituted a taking or that an official is personally liable; qualified immunity applies | Walz entitled to qualified immunity; takings claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063 (2021) (per se physical takings rule; focus on government appropriation or physical invasion)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (regulatory takings multifactor framework)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (clarifies takings inquiry and rejects means‑ends test)
- Tahoe‑Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg. Plan. Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) (temporary regulatory takings principles)
- Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40 (1960) (government must provide just compensation for takings)
- Hawse v. Page, 7 F.4th 685 (8th Cir. 2021) (COVID‑related mootness analysis; changed public‑health conditions affect repetition inquiry)
- Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 1294 (2021) (per curiam) (reviewability of COVID‑19 restrictions may survive expiration depending on circumstances)
- Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 2005) (mootness/mootness‑for‑lack‑of‑relief principles)
- Williams v. Herron, 687 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2012) (qualified immunity; clearly established law standard)