302 A.3d 464
Del. Super. Ct.2023Background
- Governor Carney declared a COVID-19 state of emergency (Mar. 2020) and issued successive emergency modifications imposing capacity and activity limits on houses of worship (including a unique 10-person limit in April 2020 and later 30%/60% occupancy rules); the last challenged orders were lifted by early June 2020 and the emergency ended July 13, 2021.
- Two pastors (Hines and Landow) filed consolidated suits (initially in Court of Chancery) challenging those restrictions as violations of the U.S. and Delaware Constitutions and seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief against future similar orders, and nominal/compensatory damages.
- The Court of Chancery dismissed the injunctive claims for lack of a reasonable apprehension of future harm; plaintiffs transferred the action to Superior Court and reasserted the same claims for damages and declaratory relief.
- Defendant (Carney) moved to dismiss: arguing (a) qualified immunity bars federal damages claims under §1983, (b) the State Tort Claims Act (STCA) bars state-law/damages claims, and (c) declaratory relief is not justiciable because there is no live case or controversy and plaintiffs lack standing.
- The Superior Court granted the Governor's motion: (1) dismissed federal damages claims on qualified immunity grounds; (2) dismissed Delaware constitutional damages under the STCA; and (3) denied declaratory relief for lack of a present case or controversy and lack of standing/redressability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1983 damages against the Governor are permissible (qualified immunity) | Governor violated First/14th Amendment rights and plaintiffs seek damages | Qualified immunity shields officials because the law was not clearly established for COVID restrictions in Mar–Jun 2020 | Dismissed: Governor entitled to qualified immunity; law not clearly established at the time |
| Whether damages for violations of the Delaware Constitution are barred by STCA | Plaintiffs seek monetary relief under Article I, §1 (Del. Const.) | STCA immunizes state officials for discretionary emergency actions taken in good faith, absent gross negligence or bad faith | Dismissed: STCA bars damages; Governor's actions were discretionary and made in good faith |
| Whether plaintiffs can obtain declaratory relief that the past restrictions were unconstitutional | Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment that restrictions violated federal and state constitutions | Declaratory relief would be advisory: the challenged orders have been terminated and would not alter the status quo | Dismissed: no justiciable case or controversy; declaratory relief would have no practical redress |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing (redressability) | Past injury and risk of future similar restrictions justify standing | No redressability because the orders are no longer in effect and future reimposition is speculative | Dismissed: plaintiffs lack standing—relief would not redress alleged injuries |
Key Cases Cited
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (U.S. 2020) (Supreme Court granted emergency relief against occupancy limits on houses of worship; decision issued after the Delaware orders at issue)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for discretionary acts unless clearly established law was violated)
- Rollins Int’l v. Int’l Hydronics Corp., 303 A.2d 660 (Del. 1973) (establishes Delaware four‑part test for an actual controversy supporting declaratory relief)
- Taylor v. Barkes, 575 U.S. 822 (U.S. 2015) (qualified immunity shields all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law)
- In re Montgomery Cnty., 215 F.3d 367 (3d Cir. 2000) (discusses policy reasons for immunity doctrines and avoiding litigation burdens on public officials)