In Re COVID-Related Restrictions on Religious Services
Not available in text (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A governor is entitled to qualified immunity from damages for alleged federal constitutional violations and State Tort Claims Act immunity for alleged state constitutional violations when issuing temporary COVID-19 restrictions, provided the law was not clearly established at the time and the actions were discretionary and taken in good faith. Claims for a declaratory judgment regarding such expired restrictions are not justiciable due to the absence of a current case or controversy and lack of standing.
Facts:
- In early 2020, public health officials identified the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), leading the World Health Organization to declare a global pandemic by March 11, 2020.
- On March 13, 2020, Governor John C. Carney, Jr. (the Governor) issued a "Declaration of a State of Emergency" for Delaware to mitigate the rapid spread of COVID-19.
- Between March and May 2020, Governor Carney issued several emergency orders, including the Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eighteenth Modifications, which placed various restrictions on public gatherings, including those in Houses of Worship.
- Specifically, the Tenth Modification on April 6, 2020, ordered Houses of Worship to limit in-person services to no more than 10 people, a restriction uniquely applied to them among 237 categories of "Essential Businesses."
- The Eighteenth Modification further imposed detailed restrictions on Houses of Worship, such as prohibiting communion, baptism involving touch, worship exceeding 60 minutes, and requiring masks for preachers, while also setting specific capacity limits.
- By May 31, 2020, through the Twentieth Modification, Governor Carney eliminated the stricter, specific restrictions on Houses of Worship, aligning their capacity limits (30%) with other Essential Businesses.
- All specific restrictions on religious services were effectively abandoned by June 2, 2020, and Governor Carney officially ended the statewide State of Emergency and all related restrictions on July 13, 2021.
Procedural Posture:
- Pastor Alan Hines of the Townsend Free Will Baptist Church and Reverend David W. Landow of Emmanuel Orthodox Presbyterian Church (Plaintiffs) initially filed separate complaints in the Court of Chancery on December 1, 2021.
- Plaintiffs' complaints were consolidated on December 23, 2021, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the constitutionality of the challenged restrictions, a permanent injunction against the Governor and his successors, and nominal and compensatory damages.
- On November 21, 2022, the Court of Chancery dismissed Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the request for injunctive relief was not justiciable because future harm was "speculative at best."
- Plaintiffs transferred this action to the Superior Court pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1902 and filed the operative Complaint on January 24, 2023.
- Defendant Governor John Carney filed a motion to dismiss on April 14, 2023, asserting that Plaintiffs’ claims for damages were barred by qualified immunity and the State Tort Claims Act, and that claims for declaratory judgment were not justiciable due to lack of a case or controversy and standing.
- Briefing concluded on May 18, 2023, and the Court held oral argument on May 31, 2023, reserving decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a governor have qualified immunity from damages for alleged federal constitutional violations and State Tort Claims Act immunity for alleged state constitutional violations when issuing temporary, expired COVID-19 restrictions, and are claims for a declaratory judgment concerning such past restrictions justiciable?
Opinions:
Majority - Adams, J.
No, Governor Carney is immune from damages for alleged federal constitutional violations under the doctrine of qualified immunity, and for alleged state constitutional violations under the State Tort Claims Act. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment regarding the expired restrictions is not justiciable. Regarding the federal constitutional claims (Counts II-V), the court found Governor Carney is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not "clearly established" at the time the Challenged Restrictions were implemented (March-June 2020) as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court noted a lack of clear consensus among federal and state courts during this period, citing numerous cases where officials were granted qualified immunity for similar COVID-19 restrictions. The Supreme Court's decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, which found occupancy limits unconstitutional, was issued in November 2020, months after the challenged Delaware restrictions, and thus could not have provided "fair notice" to the Governor. Government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from damages unless their conduct violates clearly established law that a reasonable official would have known, particularly in a public health crisis "fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties." For the state constitutional claims (Count I), the court held Governor Carney is immune from damages under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA). The STCA provides a rebuttable presumption that an official's actions were discretionary, undertaken in good faith and in the public interest, and without gross or wanton negligence. The Emergency Management Act grants the Governor broad discretionary authority to respond to state-wide emergencies, allowing him to issue "necessary executive orders" and "take such other actions as the Governor reasonably believes necessary to help maintain life, health, property or public peace." The court found that crafting policies to balance virus mitigation with civil liberties during a novel, rapidly evolving pandemic was inherently discretionary and required informed judgment. Plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption that the Governor acted in good faith and without gross or wanton negligence. Finally, the Plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment is not justiciable because there is no actual "case or controversy" and Plaintiffs lack standing. Applying the four-part Rollins test, the court determined there is no current controversy involving "real and adverse interests" as the challenged restrictions are no longer in effect (terminated June 2, 2020, and the State of Emergency ended July 13, 2021). The court cannot provide a "practical effect" or "meaningful relief" for past harm, rendering the request for a declaratory judgment an "advisory opinion" on hypothetical questions. Furthermore, Plaintiffs lack standing because a declaratory judgment would not redress their alleged injuries; it would not alter the status quo or restore any rights that are already unrestricted. The possibility of future similar restrictions was deemed "speculative at best."
Analysis:
This case reinforces the significant protections afforded to government officials through qualified immunity and state tort claims acts, particularly when exercising broad discretionary powers during novel public health emergencies. It sets a high bar for overcoming these immunities, requiring a showing that an official's actions violated a clearly established right at the time of the alleged misconduct, thereby providing officials latitude in responding to unforeseen crises without immediate fear of damage liability. Furthermore, the ruling strictly applies justiciability doctrines, limiting the scope of declaratory judgments to current, redressable controversies and preventing courts from issuing advisory opinions on historical governmental actions that no longer have a practical effect on the parties, emphasizing judicial efficiency and a focus on live disputes.
