Opinion ID: 4644043
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Beans Cafe’s Allegations

Text: Beans Cafe originally sought a declaration that certain provisions of the May 22, 2020 Healthy at Work: Requirements for Restaurants59 are arbitrary. It complained that the requirement that employees wear PPE whenever they are near other employees or customers (so long as such use does not jeopardize the employee’s health or safety) is not uniformly applied. Beans Cafe also alleged little scientific basis exists for requiring cloth facemasks, rendering the requirement arbitrary. The cafe challenged as arbitrary and capricious the order limiting restaurants to 33% indoor capacity and requiring six feet of distance between customers, noting these requirements make it difficult, if not impossible, for restaurants to make a profit. Beans Cafe also contends that it is arbitrary not to allow customers to sit back-to-back at tables with a threeand-one-half foot distance between the customers. As indicated above, effective June 29, 2020, in the Healthy at Work: Requirements for Restaurants and Bars, the social distancing requirements for restaurants changed to a 50% capacity limit or the greatest number that permits individuals not from the same household to maintain six feet of space between each other with that level of occupancy. The PPE mask provisions stayed the same. However, the emergency mask regulation went into effect July 10, 2020. Based on the changes in regulations, the only issues remaining are whether a rational basis exists for requiring the six-foot social distancing 59 The Governor’s May 22, 2020 order incorporated the Healthy at Work requirements. 81 and face coverings. Beans Cafe seeks an amendment in the six-foot social distancing requirement because that requirement, despite being allowed 50% capacity, reduces the business’s seating capacity to about 30%. Although the July 10, 2020 emergency mask regulation is more detailed than the May 22, 2020 face mask provision, the requirement that employees must wear face masks when they are near other employees or customers (so long as such use does not jeopardize the employee’s health or safety) is reflected in 902 KAR 2:190E60 Section (2), subsections (2)(a) and (4)(b), which requires any person in a restaurant (when not seated and consuming food or beverage) to wear a face covering when within six feet of another, unless that individual is of his household; the face covering provision does not apply when a person has a disability that prevents them from safely wearing a face covering. As identified in 902 KAR 2:190E, KRS 214.020, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services’s broad police powers for dealing with contagious 60 902 KAR 2:210E replaced 902 KAR 2:190E effective August 7, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. Related to this case, 902 KAR 2:210E changed the non-compliance penalties. The penalties are described below. 82 diseases,61 KRS 211.025,62 and KRS 211.180(1)63 provide a rational basis for the face covering and the social distancing measure which Beans Cafe challenges. In addition, Dr. Stack testified during the evidentiary hearing regarding the scientific basis for the six-foot social distancing requirement and wearing face coverings to prevent the spread of COVID-19, a highly contagious respiratory disease. Beans Cafe’s citation to a study questioning the efficacy of cloth masks does not in any way negate the established rational basis for these public health measures.64 61 KRS 214.020 states: When the Cabinet for Health and Family Services believes that there is a probability that any infectious or contagious disease will invade this state, it shall take such action and adopt and enforce such rules and regulations as it deems efficient in preventing the introduction or spread of such infectious or contagious disease or diseases within this state, and to accomplish these objects shall establish and strictly maintain quarantine and isolation at such places as it deems proper. 62 KRS 211.025 states: Except as otherwise provided by law, the cabinet shall administer all provisions of law relating to public health; shall enforce all public health laws and all regulations of the secretary; shall supervise and assist all local boards of health and departments; shall do all other things reasonably necessary to protect and improve the health of the people; and may cooperate with federal and other health agencies and organizations in matters relating to public health. 63 KRS 211.180(1) states: The cabinet shall enforce the administrative regulations promulgated by the secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services for the regulation and control of the matters set out below . . . including but not limited to the following matters: (a) Detection, prevention, and control of communicable diseases, . . . . 64The Boone Circuit Court cited to the study but declined to rely on it as not being subject to judicial notice. The title of the study indicates it compared cloth masks to medical masks in healthcare workers. 83 In regard to Beans Cafe’s allegation that it was arbitrary not to allow customers to sit back-to-back at tables with a three and one-half foot distance between them, Dr. Stack testified to the reasoning behind measures used in restaurants to mitigate spread of the virus. He first noted that eating and drinking increases saliva and spreads respiratory droplets because people do not wear masks while consuming food and drink. In terms of the six-foot spacing requirement for restaurant and bars, there is an exception for booth seating when there is a plexiglass barrier, as long as the barrier effectively separates the opposite side. The physical barrier is of added value and in theory prevents virus spreading easily back and forth. Dr. Stack contrasted that to the very different situation when people are sitting back-to-back with three-foot distance between them in the middle of an open restaurant, when people generally turn and move around, an environment where the virus can easily spread. On this restriction, Beans Cafe essentially had nothing more than an allegation of arbitrariness while Dr. Stack’s testimony establishes a rational basis for this public health measure. Finally, face masks. As this case progressed to the injunction hearing, Plaintiffs expressed that they were willing to require their employees and customers to wear masks, a fact noted by the Boone Circuit Court in its Order. However, they objected to the business closure penalty that could result if they did not enforce the mask requirement on their premises. Plaintiffs argue that the July 10, 2020 statewide mask regulation, 902 KAR 2:190E, which they 84 describe as requiring businesses in violation of the regulation to be immediately shut down, violates due process. Pertinently, 902 KAR 2:190E Section 3, Non-Compliance, provides: (2) Any person who violates this Regulation by failing to wear a face covering while in a location listed in Section 2 and not subject to any of the listed exemptions shall receive a warning for the first offense, a fine of fifty dollars ($50) for the second offense, seventy five dollars for the third offense, and one hundred dollars for each subsequent offense.[65] Additionally, if the person is violating this Regulation by attempting to enter a public-facing entity or mode of transportation listed in Section 2 while failing to wear a face covering and not subject to any of the exemptions listed, they shall be denied access to that public-facing entity or mode of transportation. If a person is already on the premises and violates this Regulation by removing a face covering, they shall be denied services and asked to leave the premises, and may be subject to other applicable civil and criminal penalties. (3) Any owner, operator or employer of a business or other public facing entity who violates this Regulation by permitting individuals on the premises who are not wearing a 65 902 KAR 2:210E revised the penalty section to read: A person who violates this administrative regulation by failing to wear a face covering as required by Section 2(2) of this administrative regulation and who is not exempt pursuant to Section 2(3) of this administrative regulation shall be given a warning for the first offense and shall be fined: 1. Twenty-five (25) dollars for the second offense; 2. Fifty (50) dollars for the third offense; 3. Seventy-five (75) dollars for the fourth offense; and 4. $100 for each subsequent offense. At a September 8, 2020 meeting of the Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee, the face mask regulation, 902 KAR 2:210E, was the subject of public comment by several witnesses. After the comments, a subcommittee member made a motion to declare the emergency regulation deficient. A deficiency motion is the vehicle the subcommittee uses to request that the Governor withdraw an emergency regulation in accordance with KRS 13A.190. The motion failed. 902 KAR 2:210E: Covering the Face in Response to Declared National Or State Public Health Emergency – Committee Review of Effective Regulations, Admin. R. Review Subcomm. (Sept. 8, 2020) (minutes available at https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/minutes/adm_regs/200908OK.PDF). 85 face covering and are not subject to any exemption shall be fined at the rates listed in section 3(2). The business may also be subject to an order requiring immediate closure. While the Plaintiffs argue that the closure penalty for non-compliance is arbitrary due to lack of procedural due process, they do not identify any among themselves who has been threatened with a fine, fined, threatened with closure, or closed pursuant to 902 KAR 2:190E. As recently explained in Commonwealth Cabinet for Health & Family Services, Department for Medicaid Services v. Sexton by & through Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc., 566 S.W.3d 185, 195 (Ky. 2018), in order for Kentucky courts to have constitutional jurisdiction to decide a claim, the litigant must have standing. Standing is achieved when “[a] plaintiff . . . allege[s] a personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and [which is] likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984), overruled on other grounds by Lexmark Intern., Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014). The injury must be a distinct and palpable injury that is actual or imminent. Id. at 751; Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 517, 127 S. Ct. 1438, 1453 (2007) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 578 (1992)). Here, because the Plaintiffs’ injury is only hypothetical, they have failed to show the requisite injury for adjudication of their claim related to 902 KAR 2:190E’s business closure penalty. Additionally, because the Plaintiffs have not raised a case or controversy, Commonwealth v. Bredhold, 599 S.W.3d 409, 417 (Ky. 2020), a declaration of rights is not available to the Plaintiffs under 902 KAR 2:190E. See also KRS 418.040; Veith v. City of Louisville, 355 86 S.W.2d 295 (Ky. 1962). Finally, while it is clear that the Cabinet has broad police powers to enforce its public health measures, Plaintiffs are not without recourse if they were to become subject to a fine or business closure and chose to challenge it. Just as in the present case, the courts are always open when citizens believe the government has overstepped. Although not a challenge to a specific individual order or regulation, the Attorney General also has challenged the Governor’s orders as arbitrary because they have not been geographically tailored on a county-by-county or regional basis, but have employed a “one-size-fits-all-approach.” He notes, at least early on, some areas of Kentucky had no reported COVID-19 cases. However, given Dr. Stack’s testimony about COVID-19’s introduction and quick spread to the United States and evolving knowledge of its method of transmission, the Attorney General has failed to show how the Governor’s orders dealing with a previously unknown viral pathogen were not rationally related to mitigation of its spread. In fact, COVID-19 has now spread to all 120 Kentucky counties and all areas of the Commonwealth even with prompt and proactive public health measures.66 In summary, KRS 214.020 reflects the Cabinet’s broad police powers (and the Governor’s in conjunction with the Cabinet in the event of an emergency) to adopt measures that will prevent the introduction and spread of infectious diseases in this state. While a global pandemic is unprecedented for 66 See Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, COVID-19 Daily Reports, https://chfs.ky.gov/Pages/cvdaily.aspx (last visited Nov. 1, 2020). 87 all but those who were alive during the 1918 influenza epidemic,67 the measures employed to deal with the spread of COVID-19, including business closure, are not unprecedented in our Commonwealth. See Allison v. Cash, 137 S.W. 245 (Ky. 1911) (smallpox epidemic in Lyon County grounds for closing millinery shop). Courts have long recognized the broad health care powers of the government will frequently affect and impinge on business and individual interests. As the United States Supreme Court recognized in Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 26, But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. Here, except for the initial social distancing requirement at Florence Speedway which violates Section 2, the challenged public health measures do 67 University of Michigan Center for the History of Medicine, American Influenza Epidemic of 1918-1919: Louisville, Kentucky, https://www.influenzaarchive.org /cities/city-louisville.html#. The influenza death toll in Kentucky during that epidemic is estimated between 14,000-16,000. Worldwide it is estimated that at least 50 million died, with about 675,000 deaths occurring in the United States. Jack Welch, The Mother of All Pandemics, Louisville Magazine (Aug. 16, 2020, 11:03 a.m., originally appeared in Oct. 2009 issue), https://www.louisville.com/content/motherall-pandemics; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1918 Pandemic (H1N1 virus), https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html. (Sources last visited Nov. 1, 2020.) 88 not violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Kentucky Constitution. A rational basis exists for the other orders and regulations, all of which are reasonably designed to contain the spread of a highly contagious and potentially deadly disease. As to Florence Speedway, its social distancing complaint regarding household seating has been remedied with a subsequent executive order that became effective six days after the July 16 injunction hearing. V. The Writ Action is Moot and Plaintiffs Have Not Established that They Are Entitled to the Requested Injunctive Relief. This particular action, 2020-SC-0313, began as an original action seeking a writ against the Court of Appeals’ judge who had denied writ relief following the issuance of the Boone Circuit Court’s July 2, 2020 restraining order. Typically a restraining order remains in place until and not after (a) the time set for a hearing on a motion to dissolve the order, (b) entry of a temporary injunction or (c) entry of final judgment. CR 65.03. A hearing was held on Plaintiffs’ and the Attorney General’s request for a temporary injunction and the Boone Circuit Court prepared a July 20, 2020 temporary injunction order, granting the relief requested, but our July 17 stay order precluded entry of any such order until this Court addressed the COVID-19 emergency issues raised in that and other pending cases. With the presentation of a temporary injunction ready for entry, the writ action as presented is now moot and by virtue of this Court’s stay order this case has essentially evolved into an appeal of the temporary injunction order. A temporary injunction may be issued by the trial court when the plaintiff has shown irreparable injury, that the various equities involved favor 89 issuance of the relief requested and that a substantial question exists on the merits. Maupin v. Stansbury, 575 S.W.2d 695, 697 (Ky. App. 1978). “Although not an exclusive list, [in balancing the equities] the court should consider such things as possible detriment to the public interest, harm to the defendant, and whether the injunction will merely preserve the status quo.” Id. To grant relief, a trial court must conclude “that an injunction will not be inequitable, i.e., will not unduly harm other parties or disserve the public.” Price v. Paintsville Tourism Comm’n, 261 S.W.3d 482, 484 (Ky. 2008). To satisfy the “substantial question” prong of the temporary injunction analysis, the trial court must determine there is a “substantial possibility” that the plaintiff “will ultimately prevail on the merits.” Norsworthy v. Kentucky Bd. of Medical Licensure, 330 S.W.3d 58, 63 (Ky. 2009) (emphasis added). A trial court’s order granting injunctive relief is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Price, 261 S.W.3d at 484. “The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999). Here, the trial court concluded that at least two of the Plaintiffs, Little Links and Florence Speedway, had established irreparable injury to their respective business interests. Even if we accept those findings for purposes of review, injunctive relief is still not justified in this case. As our discussion of the four legal challenges reflects, there is not a “substantial possibility” that Plaintiffs and the Attorney General “will ultimately prevail on the merits.” 90 Norsworthy, 330 S.W.3d at 63. Additionally, the equities weigh against the grant of a temporary injunction. Plaintiffs and the Attorney General argue that the injunction serves the public interest because the Governor’s orders have caused economic hardships and burdened the constitutional rights of citizens. In their view, the injunction will allow Kentuckians to reestablish control over critical aspects of their lives. We conclude that the greater public interest lies instead with the public health of the citizens of the Commonwealth as a whole. The global COVID-19 pandemic threatens not only the health and lives of Kentuckians but also their own economic interests; the interests of the vast majority take precedence over the individual business interests of any one person or entity. While we recognize and appreciate that the Plaintiffs allege injuries to entire industries in the state, such as the restaurant and childcare industries, the interests of these industries simply cannot outweigh the public health interests of the state as a whole. The Governor’s orders were, and continue to be, necessary to slow the spread of COVID-19 and protect the health and safety of all Kentucky citizens. This type of highly contagious etiological hazard is precisely the type of emergency that requires a statewide response and properly serves as a basis for the Governor’s actions under KRS Chapter 39A. Because the law and equities favor the Governor in this matter, it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to issue the temporary injunction. 91