71 F.4th 724
9th Cir.2023Background
- In March 2020 Marin County issued a COVID-19 health order directing residents to shelter in place and listing exceptions for "essential" businesses; the County modified the order on May 15, 2020 to permit additional outdoor and essential activities but continued to prohibit recreational sightseeing flights.
- Seaplane Adventures (an air-tour/operator) ceased operations in mid‑March, reopened in early June 2020, and thereafter received warnings and a July 2020 sheriff’s-office visit instructing it to stop commercial sightseeing flights; Seaplane thereafter ceased the challenged operations.
- Seaplane sued (Sept. 2020) asserting six claims; the district court dismissed all but an equal‑protection ("class‑of‑one") §1983 claim and a preemption claim under the Airline Deregulation Act.
- On summary judgment the district court entered judgment for the County on the equal‑protection claim but granted limited declaratory relief on the preemption issue.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the County (holding the County’s actions satisfied rational‑basis review and/or Seaplane failed to show the County knew of similarly situated violators) and vacated the preemption declaration as moot, remanding with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County’s enforcement of health orders violated equal protection (class‑of‑one) | County singled out Seaplane and treated it differently from similarly situated air carriers without any rational basis | County’s restrictions were rationally related to public‑health objectives and/or County lacked knowledge of other violators | Affirmed for County — County action met rational‑basis review and Seaplane failed to show unequal treatment known to County |
| Whether district court abused discretion in considering Dr. Willis’s testimony | Dr. Willis was not designated as the most knowledgeable witness and Seaplane lacked opportunity to depose him | Seaplane could have deposed Dr. Willis and the court did not err in receiving his testimony | No abuse of discretion; district court properly considered Dr. Willis’s testimony |
| Whether federal law (Airline Deregulation Act) preempted County’s health orders | Seaplane argued the ADA preempted local restrictions on charter/air operations | County contended preemption was not established and the issues may be moot as orders expired | Declaratory relief on preemption vacated as moot and remanded with instruction to dismiss |
| Whether exceptions to mootness (voluntary cessation; capable of repetition yet evading review) apply | Seaplane argued the dispute could recur or was too short for review | County showed the challenged orders expired, emergencies ended, and recurrence was not reasonably expected | Exceptions do not apply; case is moot as to preemption issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (states’ police power and deference to public‑health measures)
- Gerhart v. Lake County, 637 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements and rational‑basis focus of a class‑of‑one equal‑protection claim)
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (1955) (description of deferential rational‑basis review for economic/regulatory measures)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (recognition that stemming COVID‑19 transmission is a compelling state interest in pandemic restrictions context)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (voluntary cessation and mootness principles)
- Brach v. Newsom, 38 F.4th 6 (9th Cir. 2022) (application of mootness exceptions in COVID‑19 orders context)