After 8 months, court dismisses lawsuit challenging Colorado stay-at-home, pandemic ordersWuhan flu does not constitute a crisis in Colorado,” Lawrence said at the time, referring to the Chinese city where the novel coronavirus originated. As of Saturday, nearly 4,000 Colorado residents have died from the disease.
In his lawsuit, Lawrence, a former restaurant worker, challenged occupancy limitations and other restrictions for restaurants. He also alleged the COVID-19 orders precluded his ability to travel, and that he has had to scuttle planned travel to Kansas City, to North Carolina and even to attend Mass. To Lawrence’s specific claims that the restrictions adversely affected his liberties, Domenico found there to be no prohibition on Lawrence’s travel, and no evidence that state authorities tried to punish or prevent anyone from leaving Colorado during the pandemic.
Although Lawrence likely suffered financial harm from his employer restaurant’s closure, he did not have a legally protected interest in continued employment there. His restaurant could have chosen to stay open, even under adverse regulations, and, Domenico added, “the State has not outlawed Mr. Lawrence’s profession or imposed any particular restrictions on his employment. “
Finally, the judge ruled Lawrence did not have standing to challenge regulations on employers. Domenico declined to review Lawrence’s claims based on Colorado’s constitution and laws, instead permitting him to bring those allegations forward in state court.
In asking for dismissal of the case, the state referenced the 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which the Court upheld a Massachusetts law allowing cities to mandate vaccinations against smallpox. The justices determined that if such laws had real connections to a public health crisis, a community had the right to protect itself from an epidemic of disease.
U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Domenico, in a Dec. 4 order, acknowledged that while a public health emergency did not suspend the Constitution, many executive actions related to the crisis could nonetheless survive judicial scrutiny.
“As this court has recognized in this case and elsewhere, local governments have broad powers to act during an emergency to secure public health and safety,” he wrote.
In October, Domenico granted two Denver-area churches exemption from capacity limits and mask wearing during the exercise of religious activities, writing that there appeared to be disparate treatment of faith houses compared to secular businesses. Although the Supreme Court had previously upheld restrictions on houses of worship, the rushed addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in October resulted in a 5-4 decision last month overturning New York’s attendance limits on congregations.
Similarly, in his order in the Lawrence case, the judge was sympathetic to Lawrence’s general contention about the infringement of public health orders on constitutional rights.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/after-8-months-court-dismisses-lawsuit-challenging-colorado-stay-at-home-pandemic-orders/article_30d69eda-3e18-11eb-854b-833b79542117.html?ana=9News