475 F.Supp.3d 866
N.D. Ill.2020Background
- Plaintiffs: Village of Orland Park (home-rule municipality), Tom McMullen (co-owner of the Brass Tap), and two residents (Gregory Buban, Joe Solek) challenged Illinois Governor Pritzker’s COVID-19 executive orders seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Governor issued successive emergency proclamations and executive orders under the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, beginning March 2020: initial shelter-in-place and indoor dining closures (EO 2020-10); extensions (EO 2020-18, EO 2020-32); phased relaxations allowing outdoor dining (EO 2020-38) and later limited indoor dining/gatherings up to 50 (EO 2020-43).
- Brass Tap alleged severe revenue loss from mandated on-premises closures; Buban and Solek alleged being "isolated" at home and deprived of travel/exercise/association without written notice or court orders.
- Plaintiffs asserted federal claims (procedural and substantive due process; equal protection) and multiple Illinois state-law and constitutional claims (including violation of the Illinois Department of Public Health Act).
- Procedural posture: Plaintiffs moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction; the court denied relief, finding little likelihood of success on federal claims, and held Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred the state-law claims in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / real-party-in-interest (McMullen/Brass Tap) | McMullen, as co-owner, suffered injury from Brass Tap losses and can sue | McMullen may not be the proper party if the Brass Tap is a corporation; standing and real-party issues unresolved | At pleading stage McMullen plausibly alleged injury; real-party-in-interest concern noted and may reduce likelihood for Brass Tap claims but dismissal deferred to allow amendment |
| Federal procedural due process (Counts I–II) | Governor violated procedural due process and IDPHA requirements (no individualized notice/hearings; needed consent or court orders) | No federal right to state-mandated procedures; Mathews balancing favors post-deprivation process given public-health emergency | Plaintiffs have negligible likelihood to prevail; federal constitution does not guarantee state-law procedures and Mathews factors weigh against pre-deprivation hearings |
| Federal substantive due process (Count III) | Buban and Solek: orders infringe fundamental rights to live/work, travel, association | No fundamental right shown; measures rationally related to legitimate public-health interest; Jacobson deference applies | Negligible likelihood to prevail; either no fundamental right implicated or rational-basis (and Jacobson deference) upholds the orders |
| Equal protection (Count IV) | Brass Tap: restaurants/bars treated worse than other businesses (e.g., salons, churches) without justification | Classification is not suspect and not targeting a fundamental right; distinctions are rationally related to transmission risks and public-health goals | Claim fails under rational-basis review; Governor’s differential treatment is rationally conceived |
| State-law and Illinois-constitution claims (Counts V–XI) | Governor exceeded authority under state law/IDPHA; Village (home-rule) and others seek relief under state law | Eleventh Amendment bars state-law claims against state officials in federal court; Ex parte Young/Edelman exceptions are inapplicable to state-law claims; Governor acted under statutory authority so not ultra vires | Court held sovereign immunity bars Plaintiffs’ state-law claims in federal court; those counts cannot support injunctive relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (courts defer to reasonable public-health measures during epidemics unless measures lack relation to objective or are a plain invasion of rights)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor balancing test for procedural due process)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment bars federal suits for violations of state law against state officials)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (prospective federal relief against state officials for federal-law violations but not for state-law claims)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (limits on relief against state officials; Ex parte Young does not revive state-law claims)
- GEFT Outdoors, LLC v. City of Westfield, 922 F.3d 357 (7th Cir. 2019) (preliminary injunction standards and likelihood-of-success framework)
- Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, 962 F.3d 341 (7th Cir. 2020) (applying Jacobson and upholding COVID-related restrictions)
- In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 773 (5th Cir. 2020) (review of emergency public-health restrictions under Jacobson framework)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (Article III standing requirements)