326 A.3d 626
Del.2024Background
- In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Delaware Governor John Carney issued a series of emergency orders restricting the operation of many businesses and houses of worship to stem the spread of the virus.
- Houses of worship were initially classified as "essential" but faced uniquely strict limitations during early 2020, including a ten-person on-site attendance cap.
- All challenged restrictions were lifted by June 2020, and, following federal litigation and a settlement (Bullock case), the Governor agreed not to target houses of worship with special restrictions in the future.
- More than a year after the restrictions were lifted, two religious leaders sued in Delaware's Court of Chancery, seeking injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages; the case was later transferred to the Superior Court after Chancery dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The Superior Court dismissed the claims, finding the requests nonjusticiable and holding the Governor was immune from damages.
- The case reached the Delaware Supreme Court on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Chancery) | Reasonable fear Governor could repeat restrictions | No ongoing or imminent harm; claims moot | Chancery correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (no reasonable apprehension of future wrong) |
| Justiciability (Declaratory Relief) | Past injury & ongoing risk justify declaration | No present controversy; conduct ceased | No justiciable controversy or standing; claims waived or non-redressable |
| Damages under Delaware Constitution | Governor lacked discretion to impose unconstitutional acts | Acted in discretionary capacity, in good faith under emergency powers | STCA immunity applies: Governor acted discretionarily, in good faith, without gross negligence |
| Damages under U.S. Constitution (§1983) | Rights were clear and violations obvious | No clearly established law at the time; qualified immunity applies | Qualified immunity shields Governor due to lack of clear precedent at the time |
Key Cases Cited
- Rollins Int’l v. Int’l Hydronics Corp., 303 A.2d 660 (Del. 1973) (establishes requirements for actual controversy in declaratory judgment actions)
- Albence v. Higgin, 295 A.3d 1065 (Del. 2022) (clarifies elements of standing and redressability under Delaware law)
- Emps. Ins. Co. of Wausau v. First State Orthopaedics, P.A., 312 A.3d 597 (Del. 2024) (voluntary cessation of challenged conduct renders controversy nonjusticiable)
- White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73 (2017) (qualified immunity applies unless the violated right was clearly established)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012) (officials are shielded from liability unless violation of law was clear)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (qualified immunity requires particularized clearly established law)