517 F.Supp.3d 922
N.D. Cal.2021Background
- Plaintiffs (individuals and business owners in Santa Clara County) challenged California and County COVID-19 restrictions (State "Blueprint" tier system; State guidance limiting indoor private gatherings in widespread tier and outdoor private gatherings to three households; County ban on indoor gatherings and 200-person cap on outdoor gatherings; directives limiting indoor dining and certain personal care services).
- Plaintiffs asserted claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments: free speech/assembly, free exercise, substantive due process (right to earn a living), equal protection, and vagueness; they sought a preliminary injunction.
- The court summarized epidemiological findings: COVID-19 is highly transmissible (including asymptomatic spread); indoor, prolonged, vocal gatherings pose high transmission risk; hospitals/ICU capacity in California and Santa Clara were strained during the surge.
- The County and State tailored restrictions by risk (tiered Blueprint, objective risk factors) and adopted targeted protections for vulnerable populations and long-term care facilities.
- Applying governing standards for preliminary injunctions, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion: plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of their due process, equal protection, free speech, or free exercise claims; some plaintiffs showed irreparable harm but the public interest and balance of equities weighed against an injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process (right to earn a living) | Restrictions unlawfully deprive business owners of liberty/property to earn a living | Measures relate to public health and are within police powers; Jacobson governs emergency public-health measures | Not likely to succeed; Jacobson applies; restrictions bear real/substantial relation to public health and are not a plain, palpable invasion of fundamental rights |
| Equal Protection | Like businesses treated worse without rational basis; unequal treatment across counties or sectors | Distinctions are rationally related to legitimate/compelling interests (slowing spread, protecting high-risk persons, preserving healthcare capacity) | Not likely to succeed; rational-basis review (no suspect class) satisfied; measures rationally related to public-health interests |
| Free speech / assembly (political gatherings, candidate) | Limits on indoor and outdoor gatherings unconstitutionally burden political speech/assembly | Restrictions are content-neutral, aimed at transmission risk, and satisfy intermediate scrutiny (or strict scrutiny alternative) | Not likely to succeed; restrictions are content-neutral, further important government interests, and are no greater than essential; alternatively, narrowly tailored under strict scrutiny |
| Free exercise (in-home religious gatherings) | Ban on indoor private religious gatherings and outdoor limits burden free exercise | Restrictions are neutral and generally applicable; aimed at transmission control, not religious suppression; satisfy rational basis (or strict scrutiny alternative) | Not likely to succeed; rules are neutral, generally applicable, rationally related to legitimate interest; would survive strict scrutiny as narrowly tailored |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (deference to public-health emergency measures)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) (content-based vs. content-neutral speech analysis)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (free exercise neutrality and general applicability)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agriculture, 478 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2007) (scope of substantive due process liberty interests)
- United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (intermediate scrutiny test for content-neutral regulations)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (free exercise review of COVID-era worship limits)