Riley Drive Entm't I, Inc. v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 18 February 2022
• Docket Number: 20-1510
• Citation: 970 N.W.2d 289
• Parties: RILEY DRIVE ENTERTAINMENT I, INC. d/b/a Tonic Bar; Riley Drive Entertainment XVI, Inc. d/b/a Saints Pub + Patio Waukee; Cinderella Story, LLC d/b/a Shotgun Betty's; Kiss My Grits, LLC d/b/a The Irish; AGB, L.L.C. d/b/a Annie's Irish Pub; and W. West Investments, L.L.C. d/b/a Wellman's Pub & Rooftop, Appellants, v. Governor Kimberly K. REYNOLDS, in Her Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Iowa; and Iowa Department of Public Health, Appellees.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

970 N.W.2d 289

RILEY DRIVE ENTERTAINMENT I, INC. d/b/a Tonic Bar; Riley Drive Entertainment XVI, Inc. d/b/a Saints Pub + Patio Waukee; Cinderella Story, LLC d/b/a Shotgun Betty's; Kiss My Grits, LLC d/b/a The Irish; AGB, L.L.C. d/b/a Annie's Irish Pub; and W. West Investments, L.L.C. d/b/a Wellman's Pub & Rooftop, Appellants,

v.Governor Kimberly K. REYNOLDS, in Her Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Iowa; and Iowa Department of Public Health, Appellees.

No. 20-1510

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Submitted January 20, 2022

Filed February 18, 2022

Billy J. Mallory (argued) and Daniel P. Kresowik of Brick Gentry, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellants.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jeffrey S. Thompson, Solicitor General, Tessa M. Register (argued), Heather L. Adams, and Samuel P. Langholz, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees.

Mansfield, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined.

MANSFIELD, Justice.

I. Introduction.

During the COVID-19 pandemic in late August 2020, the Governor issued a public health disaster proclamation that temporarily required bars and taverns in six counties to close their doors. Six of those establishments filed this lawsuit, seeking an injunction that would block the Governor's order on grounds it exceeded her statutory and constitutional authority. After the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction was denied, the Governor rescinded her order. At that point, the district court granted the Governor's request to dismiss the lawsuit as moot and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs appeal.

The plaintiffs acknowledge their case is moot but urge us to exercise our discretion to decide it anyway. The plaintiffs invoke the voluntary-cessation and the public-importance exceptions to mootness. We conclude that neither of these grounds is apt. We are not persuaded that the Governor rescinded her order in response to this lawsuit; the order was always going to be temporary. Nor do we think this is a case for the public-importance exception. The issues are important, but many of the conditions during late summer of 2020 are unlikely to be replicated. A decision here would not prevent future clashes over different pandemic-related orders made under changed conditions. Precedent and prudence together suggest we should not decide this case. Therefore, without reaching the merits of the plaintiffs’ challenge, we affirm the district court's dismissal of this case as moot.

II. Background Facts and Proceedings.

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, governors throughout the United States harnessed their emergency powers to issue orders aimed at slowing the spread of the virus. Iowa's Governor issued her initial public health disaster proclamation on March 9, 2020. State of Iowa Exec. Dep't, Proclamation of Disaster Emergency (Mar. 9, 2020). Then on March 17, she extended her proclamation and added numerous state-wide restrictions intended to decrease transmission of the virus. State of Iowa Exec. Dep't, Proclamation of Disaster Emergency (Mar. 17, 2020). These restrictions included the closing of fitness centers, theaters, casinos, adult daycare facilities, and senior citizen centers. Id. Restaurants and bars were closed except for carry-out business. Id. In addition, all gatherings of more than ten people were banned. Id.

The March 17 order listed reasons for the restrictions:

WHEREAS, the World Health Organization has reported an outbreak of thousands of cases of Novel Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) in multiple countries, causing illness and deaths; and

....

WHEREAS, multiple cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed in Iowa, and the Iowa Department of Public Health has determined that community spread of COVID-19 is occurring within our state; and

....

WHEREAS, COVID-19 can spread person-to-person and poses a possibility of causing severe illness in certain populations and disability and/or death to certain Iowans. Likewise, reports forwarded by federal, state, and local officials indicate that state assistance is needed to manage and contain this outbreak; and

WHEREAS, the risk of transmission of COVID-19 may be substantially reduced by separating and restricting the movement of persons known or suspected to have the disease, or who have been exposed to those known or suspected to have the disease ....

Id. (emphasis omitted).

The Governor's COVID-19 public health disaster proclamation was subsequently extended and modified numerous times. See COVID-19 Proclamations , COVID-19 in Iowa, https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/pages/proclamations [https://perma.cc/5RER-35VF] (listing all COVID-19 disaster proclamations issued by the Governor). One such modification prompted this lawsuit: On August 27, during a rising tide of COVID-19 cases in Iowa, the Governor mandated a temporary closure of bars and taverns in six counties, including Polk and Dallas counties, through September 20. State of Iowa Exec. Dep't, Proclamation of Disaster Emergency (Aug. 27, 2020) ("All bars, taverns, wineries, breweries, distilleries, night clubs, and other establishments that sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on their premises shall be closed to the general public...."). The order made certain exceptions for carry-out service, private gatherings, restaurants that derive most of their revenue from food, and the consumption of alcoholic beverages on casino floors, inside theaters, and within hotel rooms. Id.¹ The August 27 order explained the reasoning behind it, stating, "[T]he continued spread of COVID-19 in the state of Iowa, especially in Black Hawk, Dallas, Johnson, Linn, Polk, and Story counties warrants taking additional reasonable measures to reduce the transmission of COVID-19." Id. It also referenced the March 17 order. Id.

The six captioned plaintiffs in this case operate licensed bars in Polk County or Dallas County. All six businesses were required to close temporarily as a result of the Governor's August 27 order.

On August 28, two of these plaintiffs filed the initial petition in the Polk County District Court against the Governor and the Iowa Department of Public Health.² The following week, all six plaintiffs (the Bars) filed an amended petition, alleging that section 2(A) of the Governor's August 27 order that closed their doors was unlawful. The Bars’ petition made several legal claims: (1) a public health disaster as defined in Iowa Code section 135.140(6) (2020) did not exist; (2) the order wrongfully restricted only a portion of an "area affected" by a public health disaster emergency instead of the entire area as required by section 29C.6(1); (3) the order also violated section 29C.6(1) because it did not state "in writing ... the facts upon which it [was] based"; (4) the order was not a "reasonable measure[ ] ... necessary to prevent the transmission of infectious disease and to ensure that all cases of communicable disease are properly identified, controlled, and treated" under section 135.144(3); (5) the order violated the Bars’ right to equal protection under the Iowa Constitution; and (6) the order violated their due process rights under the Iowa Constitution. The Bars sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages.

The Bars’ petition challenged certain facts recited in the Governor's August 27 order, while adding that it was unlawful to single out bars and taverns as opposed to other businesses. For example, portions of the petition alleged,

43. Defendants also cannot demonstrate that COVID-19 poses a "high probability" of a widespread exposure to an infectious or toxic agent that poses a "significant risk of substantial future harm" to a "large number" of the affected population.

44. Defendants cannot demonstrate that COVID-19 poses a "high probability" of short-term or long-term "physical or behavioral health consequences" to a "large number" of the affected population.

....

56. There is no evidence that the mere fact alcohol is being sold for consumption on premises increases an individual's risk of contracting or passing away from COVID-19, or somehow increases the severity of COVID-19 in an infected individual.

57. There is no evidence that consumption of alcohol at an establishment either increases an individual's risk of contracting or passing away from COVID-19, or somehow increases the severity of COVID-19 in an infected individual.

58. There is no evidence that COVID-19 is somehow more likely to be transferred on alcoholic beverage containers than on beverage containers containing non-alcoholic beverages.

The petition also attacked the disparate treatment of bars and taverns in the six designated counties as opposed to other counties.

The Bars moved for an immediate temporary injunction, supported by affidavits and other evidence. The Governor filed a resistance, backed by an affidavit of the State Epidemiologist and Public Health Medical Director. After an expedited hearing, the district court denied the request for a temporary injunction on September 4.

That same day, the Bars applied to our court for interlocutory review of the district court's denial of temporary injunctive relief. While that application was still pending, the Governor moved in the district court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ petition for failure to state a claim.

On September 15, the Governor issued a new proclamation. See State of Iowa Exec. Dep't, Proclamation of Disaster Emergency (Sep. 15, 2020). Citing "changing public health conditions in the state of Iowa, especially in Black Hawk, Dallas, Linn, and Polk counties," the Governor lifted the temporary closure of bars and taverns in those counties, allowing them to reopen the next day. At the same time, the order continued the temporary bar closure in Johnson and Story counties for only another five days, though September 20.

On October 1, the Governor filed a reply brief in the district court in support of her motion to dismiss, making the further argument that the Bars’ claim for injunctive relief was now moot. Meanwhile,...