457 F.Supp.3d 595
E.D. Ky.2020Background:
- In March–April 2020 Governor Andy Beshear issued COVID-19 executive orders: a March 19 ban on “mass gatherings,” a March 30 travel ban on Kentuckians leaving the state except for specified exceptions, and an April 2 expansion requiring out-of-state visitors to self-quarantine if they did not meet exceptions.
- On April 12 (Easter) plaintiffs Daniel and Boyle attended in-person services at Maryville Baptist Church; they received Kentucky State Police notices ordering 14‑day self‑quarantine and warning of criminal penalties for violating emergency orders.
- Plaintiff Roberts alleges the travel ban prevents otherwise lawful interstate trips to neighboring states and burdens his fundamental liberty to travel.
- Plaintiffs moved for emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; the court heard argument and issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on May 4, 2020.
- The court denied injunctive relief as to the mass‑gathering ban (Free Exercise claim) but granted injunctive relief invalidating and prohibiting enforcement of the travel‑ban orders; plaintiffs were required to post a $1,000 bond.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mass‑gathering ban violates the Free Exercise Clause | Ban as applied prevents in‑person worship and singles out religious practice for burdens | Order is neutral and generally applicable; targets all mass gatherings for public health | Denied PI — plaintiffs unlikely to succeed; law is neutral/general and not aimed at religion |
| Whether the travel orders violate the constitutional right to interstate travel / substantive due process | Travel ban unlawfully and broadly restricts virtually unconditional right to travel between states | State asserts public‑health interest and narrow exceptions for essential travel | Granted PI — travel orders invalid; not narrowly tailored and overbroad in application |
| Whether the travel orders violate procedural due process (notice, enforcement, criminal penalties) | Orders impose quarantine and criminal penalties without adequate procedural safeguards | State defends emergency authority to protect public health | Granted PI as to travel ban — court found lack of procedural due process and enjoined enforcement |
| Preliminary‑injunction balancing (irreparable harm, public interest, equities) | Plaintiffs: constitutional harms and irreparable liberty deprivation | Defendants: public health emergency justifies restrictions; public interest favors enforcement | Split result: First Amendment claim fails on likelihood of success and other PI factors; travel‑ban PI granted due to constitutional burdens and lack of narrow tailoring |
Key Cases Cited
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (neutrality and general‑applicability test for Free Exercise)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) (constitutional right to travel between states)
- United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) (right to interstate travel is fundamental to the Union)
- Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964) (governmental ends cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental liberties)
- Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) (state must use less drastic means when abridging fundamental rights)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (substantive‑due‑process framework for fundamental liberty interests)
- Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) (characterizing right to travel as virtually unconditional)
- Johnson v. City of Cincinnati, 310 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2002) (state may not choose more burdensome means when reasonable less‑restrictive alternatives exist)