Filed Date: May 15, 2020
Closed Date: Feb. 3, 2021
Clearinghouse coding complete
COVID-19 Summary: This is a suit brought by several campgrounds and individuals wishing to travel to Maine against the State of Maine's enforcement of stay-at-home orders and quarantine requirements for those traveling into Maine. The plaintiffs alleged that Maine's orders violated their rights to interstate travel, due process, and equal protection. The court denied their motion for preliminary injunction and found that the orders were narrowly tailored to the goal of protecting public health. The plaintiffs appealed on June 1 and moved for reconsideration. The court denied the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration and the case was stayed on June 8. The First Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision on January 19, 2021 and on February 3, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.
The stay-at-home executive orders issued by Maine Governor Janet Mills in response to the outbreak of COVID-19 required people entering Maine to self-quarantine for 14 days. Several campgrounds in rural Maine and individual plaintiffs wishing to travel interstate to Maine alleged that the executive orders violated their rights to interstate travel, due process, and equal protection. Represented by private counsel, plaintiffs sued Governor Mills, in her official capacity, in the United States District Court for the District of Maine under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 15, 2020. Plaintiffs, who simultaneously filed a motion for preliminary injunction (PI) and expedited relief, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' costs and fees. The case was assigned to Judge Lance E. Walker.
Plaintiffs alleged that the restrictions on interstate travel in the executive orders burdened their right to interstate travel and were not the least restrictive means for advancing a compelling government interest. Moreover, plaintiffs asserted that the restrictions on interstate travel "deprived Plaintiffs and their customers of their constitutional rights . . . without any pre- or post-deprivation process." Finally, plaintiffs claimed that "The Rural Reopening plan creates 'winners' and 'losers' of the same, similarly situated businesses, based solely upon their location within the State of Maine," in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. Plaintiffs requested an order declaring "that the challenged orders unconstitutionally infringe upon Plaintiffs’ rights to interstate travel, due process, and equal protection" and enjoining enforcement of the challenged aspects of the executive orders. 2020 WL 2519973.
On May 25, Governor Mills filed an opposition for plaintiffs' motion for PI, asserting that states "have broad latitude when confronting a public health emergency" and that "elimination of the self-quarantine requirement, at least at this time, would threaten the public health, and the plaintiffs’ desire to recreate and visit friends in other states without self-quarantining does not outweigh Maine’s interest in protecting its population."
On May 29, the United States Department of Justice filed a statement of interest, stating that "the Court should hold that Maine’s discrimination against out-of-state residents likely violates Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause." The DOJ asserted that the quarantine requirement discriminates between Maine residents and out-of-state residents and that the discrimination appears to be insufficiently tailored to further public safety.
Later that day, Judge Walker issued an order denying plaintiffs' motion for PI. Judge Walker concluded that while the executive orders burden plaintiffs' right to travel, plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success sufficient to justify PI because "it is not at all clear that there are any less restrictive means for the state to still meet their goal of curbing COVID-19." Moreover, Judge Walker found that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their due process claim; "Because the COVID-19 scenario is the kind of scenario for which emergency action would be expected, and because Plaintiffs have not persuasively shown that they are denied access to quick and meaningful post-deprivation review of administrative action." Finally, Judge Walker held that the "irreparable harm that plaintiffs would suffer as result of orders did not outweigh state's concern for public health posed by COVID-19 pandemic." However, Judge Walker stated that "Plaintiffs have raised a very serious matter for judicial resolution and I am persuaded that they might be able to demonstrate a violation of the Constitution sometime during the travel of this case." 2020 WL 2791797.
On June 1, plaintiffs appealed the denial of the motion for PI to the First Circuit (No. 20-1559). Plaintiffs also filed a motion for expedited injunction pending appeal and a motion for reconsideration, arguing that Judge Walker incorrectly placed the burden on plaintiffs to show that the Governor's order was not narrowly tailored.
On June 5, Judge Walker issued an order denying plaintiffs' motions for expedited injunction and reconsideration. Judge Walker agreed that the burden of proof rested with the Governor to prove that the orders were narrowly tailored, but stated that he had not indicated that "Plaintiffs bore the burden of proving the Governor’s restrictions were not narrowly tailored, or that they had failed to do so." Judge Walker explained that, in his May 29 order, he found that Governor Mills "carried her burden of proof sufficiently to defeat Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction."
On June 8, the defendants filed an unopposed motion to stay pending appeal, which was granted the next day.
On January 19, 2021, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. 985 F.3d 153. The court stated that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim.
On February 3, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and the case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Aaron Gurley (6/20/2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17175691/parties/bayleys-campground-inc-v-mills/
Rich, John H. III (Maine)
Walker, Lance Edward None (Maine)
Libby, Gene R (Maine)
Richard, Keith P (Maine)
Smith, Tyler J (Maine)
Frey, Aaron M (Maine)
Patwardhan, Kimberly L (Maine)
Taub, Christopher C. (Maine)
Active
Active
Rich, John H. III (Maine)
Walker, Lance Edward None (Maine)
Libby, Gene R (Maine)
Richard, Keith P (Maine)
Smith, Tyler J (Maine)
Frey, Aaron M (Maine)
Patwardhan, Kimberly L (Maine)
Taub, Christopher C. (Maine)
Dreiband, Eric S. (District of Columbia)
Frank, Halsey B (Maine)
Maugeri, Alexander V. (Colorado)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17175691/bayleys-campground-inc-v-mills/
Last updated Jan. 22, 2023, 3:03 a.m.
State / Territory: Maine
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 15, 2020
Closing Date: Feb. 3, 2021
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Campgrounds in Maine and individuals wishing to travel into Maine
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Governor of the State of Maine, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction: