465 F.Supp.3d 774
E.D. Mich.2020Background:
- Plaintiffs Steve Martinko (and his landscaping company Contender’s Tree and Lawn Specialists) and Michael and Wendy Lackomar sued Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer over Executive Orders issued in March–April 2020 imposing travel and business restrictions during the COVID-19 emergency.
- Plaintiffs alleged EO 2020-21 and EO 2020-42 deprived them of business income, interfered with Martinko’s travel to his business, and prevented the Lackomars from traveling to their cottage.
- Causes of action: (I) Fifth Amendment regulatory takings without just compensation; (II–III) substantive due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment; relief sought included injunctive and declaratory relief and damages.
- Governor moved to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds, arguing an official-capacity suit against the governor is a suit against the State and thus barred in federal court.
- The challenged EOs were rescinded (EO 2020-42 replaced EO 2020-21; EO 2020-59 and later EO 2020-110 lifted the restrictions), and plaintiffs conceded there is currently no direct restriction on access to their property.
- Court concluded Eleventh Amendment bars retrospective relief and that the Ex parte Young exception to permit prospective relief fails because the contested orders have been rescinded and plaintiffs’ speculation about future restrictions is insufficient to avoid mootness.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suit against governor in official capacity is barred by Eleventh Amendment | Martinko et al. argued their constitutional rights were violated and sought relief in federal court | Whitmer argued official-capacity suit is a suit against the State and is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity | Court: Dismissed claims for monetary and retrospective equitable relief under Eleventh Amendment |
| Whether prospective injunctive/declaratory relief is available under Ex parte Young | Plaintiffs sought prospective relief to enjoin enforcement of the EOs | Defendant said Ex parte Young exception doesn’t apply because EOs have been rescinded and no ongoing violation exists | Court: Ex parte Young inapplicable; prospective relief moot because orders were rescinded |
| Whether Eleventh Amendment immunity is overcome for a Fifth Amendment takings claim | Plaintiffs relied on Knick to argue they can bring a §1983 takings claim | Defendant argued Knick involved a local government; state remains immune under Eleventh Amendment | Court: Immunity still bars takings claim against the State in federal court; Knick did not eliminate Eleventh Amendment protection here |
| Whether plaintiffs’ speculative risk of future reimposition of restrictions avoids mootness | Plaintiffs argued restrictions could recur, justifying prospective relief | Defendant contended speculation insufficient to establish a continuing or imminent violation | Court: Speculation insufficient; claims for prospective relief are moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (official-capacity suits are suits against the State)
- Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under §1983; distinguishes local-government claims)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Fla., 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (scope of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (unconsenting State immune from federal suits regardless of relief sought)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (narrow exception permitting prospective injunctive relief against state officers for ongoing violations of federal law)
- Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64 (1985) (prospective-relief exception does not revive claims seeking only retrospective relief or moot claims)
- Cory v. White, 457 U.S. 85 (1982) (relief sought is irrelevant to Eleventh Amendment immunity analysis)
- Hess v. Port Authority Trans–Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30 (1994) (Eleventh Amendment not limited to judgments paid from state treasury)
- Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, 506 U.S. 139 (1993) (discusses sovereign immunity and federal courts)