Health Freedom Def. Fund, Inc. v. City of Hailey
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:21-cv-00389-DCN |
| Decision Date | 10 March 2022 |
| Parties | HEALTH FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF HAILEY, IDAHO, a municipal corporation; and Martha Burke, in her official capacity as the Mayor of the city of Hailey, as well as her personal capacity for the purposes of Section 1983 claims, Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Allen James Shoff, Davillier Law Group, Sandpoint, ID, for Plaintiffs.
Craig Durham, Deborah A. Ferguson, Ferguson Durham, PLLC, Boise, ID, for Defendants.
Pending before the Court is Defendants City of Hailey and Martha Burke's (collectively "the City") Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11) and Motion to Strike (Dkt. 21), as well as Plaintiffs’1 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 18). Additionally, just before the scheduled hearing in this matter, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Supplement. Dkt. 27.
The Court held oral argument on February 16, 2022, and took the matters under advisement. Upon review, and for the reasons outlined below, the Court GRANTS the City's Motion and dismisses this case. All other motions are deemed moot.
The COVID-19 pandemic has reached every corner of the globe and affected all humanity to varying degrees. The pandemic has caused widespread devastation—in terms of lives lost and economic uncertainty. It has also brought to light numerous challenges never before considered. Many of these challenges relate to public health matters. Other challenges touch on human interaction. Still others bring in politics and questions of law.
In the present case, Plaintiffs disagree with the City of Hailey's decision to utilize "mask mandates" as a public health measure during the pandemic. Plaintiffs assert such a course of action is akin to forced human experimentation in violation of their civil rights.
Plaintiffs are entitled to their opinion. However, their disagreement with the mandates, standing alone, does not give rise to a cause of action. The relatively simple and unintrusive requirement that citizens wear a mask to protect their own health, and the health of others, does not rise to the level of forced human experimentation or violate any fundamental rights in violation of the United States Constitution.
The City now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ lawsuit on the grounds that they lack legal standing to pursue their claims. Furthermore, the City contends that even if Plaintiffs had standing, their claims are not justiciable. Upon review, the Court must agree.
Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for injunctive relief hoping to curtail the City's authority to require masks during the pendency of this suit. In response to Plaintiffs’ Motion, the City filed a Motion to Strike. Just before the hearing on the above-mentioned motions, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Supplement. Because the Court grants the City's Motion to Dismiss, the remaining motions are all but moot. Nevertheless, to preserve a complete record of these proceedings, the Court will briefly address the remaining motions at the end of its decision.
As explained below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs lack standing because they have not alleged any injury in fact, because there is no causal connection between the City's actions and Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, and because a favorable ruling from this Court would not fully remedy Plaintiffs’ concerns. Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs had standing, the Court finds their Due Process claim fails as a matter of law. None of the "rights" at issue are fundamental. Accordingly, the level of scrutiny the Court applies to the City's actions is rational basis review. In undertaking such a review, the Court finds the City's actions are related to its legitimate interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens. As such, the Motion to Dismiss is granted and this case closed.
As part of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the City of Hailey, Idaho, has issued numerous Emergency Health Orders over the past two years.
On February 8, 2020, the City enacted Ordinance No. 1277, which granted the City Council the authority to enact emergency public health orders. Ordinance No. 1277 also provided that any such health orders would have a duration of no more than 90 days—subject to extensions by the City Council.
The City's original mask mandate—Order No. 2020-05—took effect on July 1, 2020. It was renewed through subsequent emergency orders on numerous occasions. The order largely at issue in the present case—Order No. 2022-01—expired the day before the hearing—February 15, 2022. The City of Hailey, however, renewed the order that same day—Order No. 2022-02—with a new expiration date of April 16, 2022.
In relevant part, the Mask Order states:
Every person, shall, when in any indoor, or outdoor public place where social distancing is not possible, completely cover their nose and mouth, when members of the public are physically present for otherwise unprotected social interaction.
Dkt. 11-1, at 3. The Order includes eight exemptions.
The lead Plaintiff in this case is the Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc., a Wyoming corporation that opposes mask mandates. It asserts associational standing as three of its members reside in Blaine County, Idaho, and claim they have been negatively affected by the City's mask mandate. Eleven individuals are also Plaintiffs. These individuals live in the City of Hailey, own businesses in the City of Hailey, or simply shop in the City of Hailey. Again, each purports to have suffered negatively as a result of the City's decision to institute the various mask orders.
On May 14, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal court. Case No. 1:21-cv-00212-DCN, Dkt. 1. The complaint in the present lawsuit is almost identical to the complaint in the prior lawsuit. Shortly after filing the aforementioned suit, however, the parties filed a joint stipulation, asking the Court to "stay and administratively close" that case. Id. at Dkt. 3. The parties made the request because Hailey's Mayor, Martha Burke, had recently rescinded the mask mandate due to a reduction of COVID-19 cases. The parties wanted to "stay and close" the case at that time, while leaving open the possibility of reopening the matter "should the mask mandate be reinstituted." Id.
In a subsequent order, the Court declined to hold the case on its docket indefinitely because the matter at issue was moot. Id. , Dkt. 4, at 2. Whether any mask mandate would again be entered was "hypothetical," and—absent a live case or controversy—there was no reason to keep the case stayed and/or "administratively closed."2 Id. at 2-3. The Court ultimately concluded that the best procedural course of action was to simply dismiss the case without prejudice should the need for refiling arise. Id. at 4.
On September 13, 2021, Mayor Burke issued a new mask mandate—Order No. 2021-06. On September 27, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit. Dkt. 1.
In the present case—again, similar to the last—Plaintiffs bring two causes of action. Count I is based upon Federal Preemption and the Supremacy Clause and is, frankly, somewhat confusing. Count II alleges the City is violating Plaintiffs’ Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
On October 19, 2021, the City filed a Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 11. Relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), the City asserts Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims and, further, even if they had standing, the City contends Plaintiffs have not brought any cognizable legal claims. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Dkt. 12.
Once the matter was fully briefed, the Court set the matter for a hearing. Dkt. 17. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. 18. The City not only opposed Plaintiffs’ Motion (Dkt. 20), but concurrently filed a Motion to Strike (Dkt. 21) seeking to exclude three declarations Plaintiff had included in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
While the already scheduled Motion to Dismiss had the potential of being dispositive of the entire case, the Court, nevertheless, set the remaining motions for oral argument at the time already appointed to conserve judicial resources. Dkt. 22.
Two days before the scheduled hearing, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Supplement. Dkt. 27. In this motion, Plaintiffs ask the Court to take notice of various comments by mayors and/or the Director of Idaho's South Central Public Health District regarding the efficacy of masks and...
To continue reading
Request your trial