The COVID Project
The record
- Jurisdiction
- Maryland (United States District Court for the District of Maryland) · Maryland
- Level
- Court
- Authority
- 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Fed. R. Civ. P. 65
- Issued
- 2020-05-20 May 20, 2020
- Effective
- 2020-05-20
- End
- final as to the preliminary injunction; the action was dismissed November 18, 2020 (Ex. DUT-MD-018) (read as 2020-11-18)
- In force
- May 20, 2020 to Nov. 18, 2020
- Quarters
- 2020 Q2
2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3
- Limitation types
- Stay-at-homeBusiness closureGathering capFace-covering requirementStanding duty
- Addressees
- the plaintiffs (a campground, an amusement park, clergy and legislators) and, as precedent, every business and person subject to the Governor's orders
- Character
- adjudication
- Collection
- Standing duties: Maryland DUT-MD
Operative words
The coronavirus-related executive orders all reference Title 14 of the Maryland Public Safety Article. Section 14-3A-03 of that title states that, following the declaration of a catastrophic health emergency, the Governor is empowered to "order the evacuation, closing, or decontamination of any facility" and to "order individuals to remain indoors or refrain from congregating."
Penalty
Not applicable (judicial opinion); recites the orders' misdemeanor penalty at 5
What it required
Held that the stay-at-home order, the prohibition on gatherings, the closing of non-essential businesses and the face-covering requirement in retail stores and on public transportation were exercises of 'the powers given to [the Governor] by the legislature' with a 'real or substantial relation' to protecting public health under Jacobson v. Massachusetts, and refused to enjoin them; recorded that 'non-essential businesses were required to remain closed' and that violation of the orders 'is a misdemeanor subject to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding $5,000 or both.' Character as recorded: adjudication (order_operating_condition layer).
Retrieval noteThirty-two pages; ECF header 'Case 1:20-cv-01130-CCB Document 40 Filed 05/20/20.' Conclusion at 32: 'Governor Hogan, exercising the powers given to him by the legislature in the face of the COVID-19 crisis, has made reasonable choices informed, if not dictated by, such data, science, and advice. In opposing the Governor's stay at home orders, including the prohibition on large gatherings, the closing of nonessential businesses, and the requirement that face coverings be worn on public transportation and in retail stores, the plaintiffs minimize the risks of this pandemic but cite no contrary scientific authority.' Footnote 17 (at 12) records the court's refusal to treat the police power as limited 'to regulating conduct that would be considered tortious.' The opinion is reported in the Federal Supplement (the reporter citation was not verified from the reporter; cite by docket). The pins are the ECF page numbers in the header.