478 F.Supp.3d 16
D. Me.2020Background:
- In March–June 2020 Governor Janet Mills issued a series of COVID-19 Executive Orders: closure limits on restaurants/bars and "non-essential" public-facing businesses, a statewide stay-at-home order, a 14-day traveler quarantine, and a phased Restarting Plan permitting incremental reopening.
- Plaintiffs (four named Maine residents/business owners or owners of businesses operated through LLCs) filed a class-action challenge on May 8, 2020, alleging economic losses and constitutional violations caused by the Orders; they sought injunctive relief.
- By the time of decision many restrictions had been eased by later Executive Orders (e.g., expanded gathering sizes, testing-based alternatives to quarantine, phased business reopenings).
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and for failure to state claims under multiple federal and state law theories; plaintiffs conceded dismissal of three counts.
- The court found plaintiffs alleged concrete economic injury sufficient for Article III standing, but dismissed all federal constitutional claims on the merits (and dismissed most state-law claims without prejudice); monetary damages were unavailable as against the State.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Plaintiffs: executive orders caused concrete economic loss (lost profits) to their businesses. | Mills: plaintiffs lack a concrete, particularized injury traceable to specific Orders. | Court: standing satisfied; lost-business economic injury is a concrete harm at pleading stage. |
| Dormant Commerce Clause | Plaintiffs: travel/quarantine restrictions (EO 57) burden interstate commerce and customers. | Mills: Orders are not discriminatory and plaintiffs fail to show burden on interstate commerce traceable to governor’s Orders. | Court: claim fails — plaintiffs allege only generalized harms and do not show discrimination or cognizable interstate burden; Count I dismissed. |
| Right to travel | Plaintiffs: Orders impede plaintiffs and customers from interstate travel. | Mills: plaintiffs do not plead they sought interstate travel or how Orders prevented it. | Court: plaintiffs failed to plead factual basis for a travel claim; Count III dismissed. |
| Procedural due process | Plaintiffs: Orders were issued without pre- or post-deprivation procedures and shuttered businesses. | Mills: emergency police power permits summary action; plaintiffs lack a protected property interest in doing business. | Court: no pre-deprivation process required in emergency; plaintiffs fail to plead a protected property/liberty interest; Count IV dismissed. |
| Substantive due process | Plaintiffs: Orders infringe liberty to run businesses; conduct shocks the conscience. | Mills: actions bear a real/substantial relation to public health (Jacobson); economic liberty is not a protected fundamental right here. | Court: applied Jacobson deference; plaintiffs’ economic harms do not trigger substantive due process; Count V dismissed. |
| Takings Clause | Plaintiffs: temporary shutdowns effectively took property/beneficial use. | Mills: plaintiffs do not identify cognizable state-created property interests or a total/denial-of-use taking. | Court: plaintiffs failed to allege specific property interests or a deprivation of all economically beneficial use; Count X dismissed. |
| State-law claims | Plaintiffs asserted several state-law claims ancillary to federal claims. | Mills: removal/defense of federal claims eliminates federal jurisdiction for pendent state claims. | Court: pendent state claims (Counts VII–IX) dismissed without prejudice for state-court resolution; Counts II, VI, XI dismissed with prejudice (plaintiffs conceded some dismissals). |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury-in-fact, causation, redressability)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (standing: injury must be concrete and particularized)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (state public-health measures receive deference when related to health protection)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states are not ‘persons’ under § 1983; Eleventh Amendment limits monetary relief)
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (temporary regulatory takings can require compensation)
- Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (total denial of economically beneficial use is a taking)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (dormant Commerce Clause balancing)
- Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas, 139 S. Ct. 2449 (dormant Commerce Clause and discrimination principles)
- Perez-Kudzma v. United States, 940 F.3d 142 (First Circuit: require specific causal allegations for standing)
- Gustavsen v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 903 F.3d 1 (First Circuit: economic loss is prototypical concrete harm)