Tropical Chill Corp. v. Pierluisi Urrutia
3:21-cv-01411
D.P.R.Jan 17, 2022Background
- Plaintiffs (Tropical Chill Corp. and four individuals) challenged Puerto Rico Executive Order 2021‑075 (EO75) and Health Regulation 138‑A, which impose vaccination/testing requirements for employees, contractors, patrons of many businesses, and require proof of COVID‑19 vaccination for certain health certificates.
- EO75 options: present proof of full vaccination, submit to periodic testing (usually weekly for employees; 72‑hour test for patrons), or show recent infection/recovery; some sectors may operate at 50% capacity instead of checking status. Regulation 138‑A conditions certain health certificates on COVID‑19 vaccination, with medical and religious exemptions only.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and federal statutes, asserting substantive due process, privacy, economic liberty/property claims; Ms. Vega raised a RFRA claim; plaintiffs also asserted supplemental Puerto Rico constitutional claims.
- The court held an evidentiary hearing (Dec 2021), received expert testimony and exhibits, and recommended denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court found jurisdictional defects (standing/ripeness) as to some claims, applied Jacobson/rational‑basis scrutiny for the non‑fundamental claims, and concluded the mandates were rationally related to the public‑health interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Ripeness | Plaintiffs (e.g., J. Vega, Matos) say mandates cause concrete economic and property harms (lost customers, threatened health certificates). | Defendants say some plaintiffs lack concrete present injury (Vega invoked Fifth, Matos still holds a certificate) or issues are speculative. | Court: Vega failed to show injury in fact for economic claim; Matos' challenge to future certificate is unripe. |
| Substantive due process (bodily integrity, privacy, economic liberty) & standard of review | Plaintiffs urge heightened scrutiny for bodily‑integrity/medical‑choice/privacy burdens and that mandates are arbitrary and overbroad. | Defendants urge Jacobson/rational‑basis review for non‑fundamental rights and that measures are rationally related to preventing COVID‑19 spread. | Court: Right to refuse vaccination is not a fundamental right requiring heightened scrutiny here; Jacobson/rational‑basis applies. EO75 and Reg. 138‑A are rationally related to public‑health goals and not arbitrary/oppressive. |
| RFRA (Ms. Vega) | Vega claims a sincerity‑based complicity objection to verifying vaccination/testing as violating her religious exercise. | Defendants argue EO75 permits alternatives (accept negative test) and that testing is a less‑restrictive means to protect public health. | Court: Vega showed sincere objection to vaccination but not to testing; RFRA fails because requiring tests (rather than vaccination) is a less‑restrictive means. |
| Puerto Rico Constitution / Delegation & criminal penalties | Plaintiffs contend the Governor lacked authority under Puerto Rico law to issue EO75, that delegation to Governor is unconstitutional, and criminal penalties exceed statutory authority. | Defendants cite 25 L.P.R.A. §3650 and §3654 delegating emergency regulatory power to the Governor and authorizing penalties during emergencies. | Court: Statute’s plain text authorizes the Governor to issue emergency orders; delegation upheld as permissible in emergency context and statutory penalty provisions apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (upheld state compulsory vaccination authority and articulated deferential review for public‑health measures).
- Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (COVID‑era decision applying strict scrutiny where restrictions targeted religious exercise).
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (RFRA framework: substantial burden, compelling interest, least‑restrictive means).
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements: injury in fact, causation, redressability).
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (careful‑description test for fundamental rights in substantive due process).
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy; movant bears heavy burden).
- Does 1‑6 v. Mills, 16 F.4th 20 (1st Cir.) (COVID‑19 context recognizing limits of Jacobson but applying deference to public‑health measures).
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana & Kentucky, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 1780 (2019) (state need not draw a perfect line; rational means suffice).
- Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (2019) (non‑delegation doctrine discussion; intelligible principle standard).