The COVID Project
The record
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (Eastern District of Missouri; St. Louis City and St. Louis County orders) · Missouri
- Level
- Court
- Authority
- 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905); In re Rutledge (8th Cir. Apr. 22, 2020)
- Issued
- 2020-05-08 May 8, 2020
- Effective
- 2020-05-08
- End
- n/a (decision on the record of the City and County orders of April 20, 2020)
- In force
- May 8, 2020 (no end date recorded; counted as in force for 120 days)
- Quarters
- 2020 Q2
2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3
- Limitation types
- Stay-at-homeBusiness closureGathering capStanding duty
- Addressees
- specified businesses (every business the City and County orders closed; every business subject to the operating conditions of the orders)
- Character
- adjudication
- Collection
- Standing duties: Missouri DUT-MO
Operative words
The concerns of Plaintiffs, in conducting their businesses, do not outweigh the severe harm the residents of the City and County could suffer if the Court overrode the Orders. Government authorities must have the ability to maintain public health and safety in times of great crises such as these.
Penalty
n/a (judicial decision); the orders it upheld carried the misdemeanor sanction of RSMo 192.300.4 and the City's ordinances
What it required
The court refused to restrain the St. Louis City and County orders that required 'all businesses, other than essential businesses, to cease virtually all activities,' recording that the State's own orders of April 3 and April 16, 2020 directed 'all businesses in the entire state to stop engaging in certain activities' and that under the City's and County's authorities 'non-essential businesses in the City and County must remain closed indefinitely'; it treated RSMo 192.290, 192.300 and 19 CSR 20-20.050(3) as the framework of local health power and found the plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on their claim that only the State Director could close businesses. Character as recorded: adjudication (order_operating_condition layer).
Retrieval noteThe court's slip opinion from the Government Publishing Office's United States Courts Opinions collection (281,760 bytes; 22 pages). At 13-14 the court found that '[b]y limiting contact between individuals in places of business, the City and County Orders attempt to slow the rate of infection and lower the rate of death,' citing the CDC's guidance as the factual basis; at 21 it quoted Frank v. City of St. Louis (E.D. Mo. May 2, 2020): 'there can be little doubt that the public interest heavily favors the city's ability to take steps to prevent the spread of this deadly disease.'.