485 F.Supp.3d 369
W.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Six private event/banquet/catering venues sued New York State officials seeking to enjoin enforcement of Executive Order 202.45, which capped non-essential gatherings at 50 people; plaintiffs claim the limit effectively shut down their businesses.
- Plaintiffs allege disparate treatment because restaurants are allowed to operate at 50% capacity, asserting Equal Protection and Takings (and other) claims under § 1983 and the New York Constitution.
- New York justified the limit as an emergency public-health measure to reduce "super-spreader" events amid the COVID-19 pandemic; Commissioner Zucker submitted a declaration describing transmission risks at large, prolonged indoor gatherings.
- The court applied the Jacobson framework (high judicial deference to emergency public-health actions) and evaluated whether the 50-person rule bore a "real or substantial relation" to public health and whether it was a "plain palpable invasion" of constitutional rights.
- District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction (finding plaintiffs failed to show a clear/substantial likelihood of success or irreparable harm) and granted defendants' motions to dismiss, but gave plaintiffs 14 days' leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Jacobson deference | Jacobson is distinguishable or inapplicable because COVID-19 science is unsettled and this is an executive order, not a legislature-enacted statute | Jacobson governs judicial review of emergency public-health measures; courts must defer to state police power during epidemics | Jacobson applies; courts must undertake highly deferential review of the Executive Order |
| Equal Protection — disparate treatment vs. restaurants | Plaintiffs: venues similarly situated to restaurants; no rational basis to treat them differently | Defendants: venues and restaurants differ materially (arrival/departure patterns, duration, mingling); restaurants designated essential for food supply | Plaintiffs failed to show they are similarly situated in all material respects; Equal Protection claim not likely to succeed |
| Takings Clause — regulatory taking | Plaintiffs: Order deprives them of economically viable use; seeks just compensation | Defendants: restrictions are temporary, do not eliminate all use (events ≤50 allowed), and are exercise of police power, not physical appropriation | Not a categorical taking; Penn Central factors weigh against compensation; Takings claim unlikely to succeed |
| Preliminary injunction — irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest | Plaintiffs: constitutional violations and imminent insolvency justify injunctive relief | Defendants: Jacobson-level deference, monetary damages available, public-health harms outweigh plaintiffs' economic hardship | Plaintiffs failed to show clear/substantial likelihood of success or the strong showing of irreparable harm; injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (framework for judicial deference to public-health emergency measures)
- South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (2020) (emphasizing deference to public-health officials and limits on judicial second-guessing)
- In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 2020) (applying Jacobson; courts owe deference to emergency public-health orders)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (multi-factor test for non-categorical regulatory takings)
- Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (categorical takings doctrine where regulation deprives all economically beneficial use)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (clarifying takings analysis and rejecting undue reliance on regulatory means-ends review)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (equal protection principle that similarly situated persons be treated alike)