IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ISRAEL HAM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 1:20cv111-MW/GRJ

ALACHUA COUNTY BOARD

OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,

et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION1

We face a global pandemic in the form of COVID-19. Chief Justice Roberts

recently described COVID-19 as “a novel severe acute respiratory illness that has

killed . . . more than 100,000 nationwide” and noted that “[a]t this time, there is no 

known cure, no effective treatment, and no vaccine” and “[b]ecause people may be 

infected but asymptomatic, they may unwittingly infect others.” S. Bay United

Pentecostal Church v. Newsome, No. 19A1044, 2020 WL 2813056, at *1 (U.S. May 

29, 2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring). 

1 This Court will not sit on its order waiting for Plaintiffs’ claims to be rendered moot. 

Instead, this Court issues an abbreviated order to afford Plaintiffs a meaningful opportunity to 

appeal. 

Case 1:20-cv-00111-MW-GRJ Document 23 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 5
2

As the nation reopened, as Florida reopened, and to prevent the spread of 

COVID-19, Alachua County enacted an Emergency Order that mandates wearing of 

“face coverings” in public “where social distancing measures are not possible” by 

all individuals except “for children under six, persons who have trouble breathing 

due to a chronic pre-existing condition or individuals with a documented or 

demonstrable medical problem.” Plaintiffs claim the Emergency Order is 

unconstitutionally vague, violates their procedural and substantive due process 

rights, and runs afoul of the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary 

injunction enjoining Alachua County from enforcing its Emergency Order. 

To obtain a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs must “plainly establish” four 

factors: (1) a substantial likelihood they will succeed on the merits; (2) that they will 

suffer irreparable injury if this Court does not issue a preliminary injunction; (3) that 

the threatened injury to Plaintiffs outweighs any harm Defendants might suffer as a 

result of the preliminary injunction; and (4) that granting the preliminary injunction 

will not disserve the public interest. See N.E. Fla. Chapter of the Ass’n of Gen. 

Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 1990). 

After considering all the submissions of the parties, this Court conducted a 

telephonic hearing on June 3, 2020. For the reasons stated on the record and as 

summarized below, Plaintiffs have not satisfied any of the four factors. 

Case 1:20-cv-00111-MW-GRJ Document 23 Filed 06/03/20 Page 2 of 5
3

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the 

merits. First, Plaintiffs are on fair notice that they are exempt from the face 

coverings mandate and the fact that there were misapplications of a prior iteration of 

the Emergency Order does not render it unconstitutionally vague. Second, among 

other problems, Plaintiffs have failed to identify a federal constitutional right 

implicated by the Emergency Order—much less a right impinged by it—and thus 

Plaintiffs fail to state a substantive due process claim. Third, procedural due process 

does not require that Plaintiffs be given a pre-enforcement hearing. Finally, applying 

the rational basis test, Alachua County’s Emergency Order is rationally related to a 

legitimate interest—preventing a spread of COVID-19—and, therefore, Plaintiffs’ 

equal protection claim fails.

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated irreparable harm. The alleged “stigma” does 

not rise to the level of stigmatization recognized as irreparable. Moreover, the fact 

that some businesses or clinics may have misapplied the exemption under a prior 

iteration of the Emergency Order does not amount to the total deprivation of basic 

life necessities. For example, Plaintiffs did not suggest—much less demonstrate—

that because they were turned away from one grocery store that every other grocery 

chain would misapply the exemption, and no such reasonable inference could be 

drawn from Plaintiffs’ declarations.

Case 1:20-cv-00111-MW-GRJ Document 23 Filed 06/03/20 Page 3 of 5
4

The limited threatened injury to the Plaintiffs in the form of inconvenience, 

stigma and the attendant anxiety, and the limited exposure of medical information 

do not outweigh the harm to Alachua County—namely, among other things, the 

administrative costs, along with other costs, associated with the spread of COVID-19 

and the risk the County’s citizens would face if this Court were to enjoin the 

Emergency Order.

Finally, the issuance of the injunction would not serve the public interest. 

Limited mandates such as the one at issue here with broad exemptions are certainly 

in the public interest if they contribute to slowing the spread of COVID-19 in 

Alachua County. 

In so ruling, this Court notes two important qualifications. First, Alachua 

County does not have unbounded authority in the exercise of its police powers in an 

emergency. The issue before this Court is whether the County exceeded its 

authority. Second, this Court is not tasked with deciding whether the Emergency 

Order at issue is a good idea or a bad idea or with substituting its judgment for that 

of the county commissioners. As Chief Justice Roberts explained in denying 

injunctive relief where California limited attendance at places of worship due to 

COVID-19,

The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities 

should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact-intensive 

matter subject to reasonable disagreement. Our Constitution principally 

entrusts “the safety and the health of the people” to the politically 

Case 1:20-cv-00111-MW-GRJ Document 23 Filed 06/03/20 Page 4 of 5
5

accountable officials of the States “to guard and protect.” . . . When 

those officials “undertake[] to act in areas fraught with medical and 

scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.”

Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject 

to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary,” which lacks the 

background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is 

not accountable to the people. 

S. Bay United Pentecostal Church, 2020 WL 2813056, at *1. Plaintiffs have not 

demonstrated that Alachua County exceeded its broad limits and this Court, like the 

Supreme Court, will not engage in second-guessing. 

For the reasons stated on the record and summarized above, Plaintiffs’ motion 

for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 7, is DENIED.

2

SO ORDERED on June 3, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

2

 Plaintiffs filed an addendum to their motion, ECF No.17, improperly docketed as a 

motion. The Clerk shall terminate this docket entry. 

Case 1:20-cv-00111-MW-GRJ Document 23 Filed 06/03/20 Page 5 of 5