S.D.Fla.: Florida’s stay-at-home order didn’t violate the Bill of Rights or the 14A

Florida’s stay-at-home order didn’t violate the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth Amendment. Henry v. Desantis, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86396 (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2020)*:

In the rare cases where a federal court is asked to strike a state’s use of its police-power authority, the court has correctly declined the invitation. For instance, in Jacobson, the Supreme Court was asked to determine the constitutionality of a Massachusetts statute that authorized cities or towns to mandate and enforce compelled vaccination of its citizens. In upholding the statute, the Court recognized Massachusetts’s general police power to prescribe the mode or manner in which public-health and welfare goals are accomplished. Id. at 24-25. The Court, again, “distinctly recognized the authority of a state to enact quarantine laws and health laws of every description.” Id. at 25.

Legal battles over various COVID-19 policies are actively playing out across the country. Some courts find their state’s policy preferences lawful. See Friends of Danny DeVito v. Wolf, 2020 WL 1847100, *24 (Pa. Apr. 13, 2020). Some find their edicts repugnant to the law. See Wisconsin Legislature v. Secretary-Designee Andrea Palm, No. 2020AP765-OA (Wis. May 13, 2020). Either way, they are properly before, and determined by, courts under the constitutions of their state. This Court is not such a venue.

Once again, however, the extent to which the states enjoy their police power is not unvarnished. Justice Harlan, author of the Jacobson opinion, ended with a clarification of the Court’s opinion “to prevent misapprehension,” ominously warning: “[T]he police power of a state, whether exercised directly by the legislature, or by a local body acting under its authority, may be exerted … by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases, as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.” 197 U.S. at 38.

And this dictum is compelling. Constitutional rights do not give way to a government’s perceived authority in times of crises. This pandemic, despite being unprecedented, did not suddenly nullify the people’s inalienable rights. See e.g., On Fire Christian Ctr., Inc. v. Fischer, 2020 WL 1820249 (W.D. Ky. 2020) (granting a temporary restraining order against the City of Louisville, Kentucky mayor for banning religious gathering on Easter Sunday amid the COVID-19 pandemic in clear violation of the First Amendment). No elected official can do so. Our country was founded on bedrock, core principles The Bill of Rights is not a suggestion; the Constitution is not optional. This order does not authorize elected officials to escalate the slow erosion of constitutional rights in the name of emergency authority. But this is simply not the case here. Petitioner has not identified a constitutional right that Governor DeSantis has violated. She is not prohibited from any of her First Amendment rights. She is not confined to her house in an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. She is not deprived of equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Governor’s actions are reasonable and measured, based on data and science, and rationally related to a legitimate end. In other words, Petitioner is subject to a pause in her life, as authorized by law, in exchange for and in an effort to maintain the majestic freedoms enjoyed in America prior to, during, and after this pandemic. As painful as this moment is for her and millions of other Floridians, her constitutional rights are not implicated.