
Error message
In order to filter by the "in queue" property, you need to add the Entityqueue: Queue relationship.-
County NewsCourts in Pennsylvania and New Mexico have come to different conclusions on governors’ business closure and stay-at-home orders.Courts split over COVID-19 business closures
-
County News Article
Courts split over COVID-19 business closures
Courts across the country, including the U.S Supreme Court, have had to resolve legal challenges to stay-at-home orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. Different aspects of stay-at-home orders have been challenged under different legal theories, including governors’ decisions to close businesses. Perhaps unsurprisingly, courts, including the New Mexico Supreme Court and a federal district court in Pennsylvania, have come to different conclusions in these novel cases.
In Lujan Grisham v. Reeb, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the governor of New Mexico has the statutory authority to close non-essential businesses and limit the operations of essential businesses and can impose fines on those who don’t comply.
In the version of the closure order being challenged, essential businesses could operate at 20 percent capacity, restaurants could only open for delivery or carry out; close-contact, non-essential businesses like hair and nail salons could open at 25 percent capacity, and recreational non-essential businesses like movie theaters and museums remained closed.
To date, the New Mexico Supreme Court has only issued a brief oral announcement of its decision. Very likely the court relied on a section of the New Mexico Public Health Act that allows the Department of Health to “close any public places and forbid gatherings of people when necessary for the protection of public health.”
In Lujan Grisham v. Romero, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the temporary closure of indoor dining at restaurants and bars wasn’t arbitrary and capricious. For about six weeks, New Mexico allowed in-door dining at 50 percent capacity but then disallowed it with “increasing evidence linking indoor dining at restaurants to a higher risk of infection.”
Again, the New Mexico Supreme Court has yet to issue a written opinion in this case. During its brief oral announcement of its ruling, the court noted that recently U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts stated that the U.S. Constitution “entrusts safety and health decisions to the political branches of government,” not the judiciary.
Previously, a federal district court ruled New Mexico couldn’t close indoor dining at bars and restaurants. The New Mexico Supreme Court overturned this decision.
In County of Butler v. Wolf, a federal district court in Pennsylvania held that the governor’s decision to close all “non-life sustaining” businesses during the pandemic violated the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
Specifically, the court concluded the closure decision was arbitrary in its “creation, scope and administration.” The Commonwealth had no “set, objective definition in writing” of what constitutes “life-sustaining,” and businesses shut down as “non-life sustaining” were often selling the same products as “life-sustaining” businesses. According to the court, it wasn’t rational to close down a furniture and small appliance store to limit personal interactions but keep Walmart open. This decision didn’t keep people home; it just sent them to Walmart.
While County of Butler v. Wolf was brought by four counties, the court concluded they, as creatures of the state, had no standing to sue the state.
Courts in Pennsylvania and New Mexico have come to different conclusions on governors’ business closure and stay-at-home orders.2020-09-21County News Article2023-04-11
Courts across the country, including the U.S Supreme Court, have had to resolve legal challenges to stay-at-home orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. Different aspects of stay-at-home orders have been challenged under different legal theories, including governors’ decisions to close businesses. Perhaps unsurprisingly, courts, including the New Mexico Supreme Court and a federal district court in Pennsylvania, have come to different conclusions in these novel cases.
In Lujan Grisham v. Reeb, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the governor of New Mexico has the statutory authority to close non-essential businesses and limit the operations of essential businesses and can impose fines on those who don’t comply.
In the version of the closure order being challenged, essential businesses could operate at 20 percent capacity, restaurants could only open for delivery or carry out; close-contact, non-essential businesses like hair and nail salons could open at 25 percent capacity, and recreational non-essential businesses like movie theaters and museums remained closed.
To date, the New Mexico Supreme Court has only issued a brief oral announcement of its decision. Very likely the court relied on a section of the New Mexico Public Health Act that allows the Department of Health to “close any public places and forbid gatherings of people when necessary for the protection of public health.”
In Lujan Grisham v. Romero, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the temporary closure of indoor dining at restaurants and bars wasn’t arbitrary and capricious. For about six weeks, New Mexico allowed in-door dining at 50 percent capacity but then disallowed it with “increasing evidence linking indoor dining at restaurants to a higher risk of infection.”
Again, the New Mexico Supreme Court has yet to issue a written opinion in this case. During its brief oral announcement of its ruling, the court noted that recently U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts stated that the U.S. Constitution “entrusts safety and health decisions to the political branches of government,” not the judiciary.
Previously, a federal district court ruled New Mexico couldn’t close indoor dining at bars and restaurants. The New Mexico Supreme Court overturned this decision.
In County of Butler v. Wolf, a federal district court in Pennsylvania held that the governor’s decision to close all “non-life sustaining” businesses during the pandemic violated the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
Specifically, the court concluded the closure decision was arbitrary in its “creation, scope and administration.” The Commonwealth had no “set, objective definition in writing” of what constitutes “life-sustaining,” and businesses shut down as “non-life sustaining” were often selling the same products as “life-sustaining” businesses. According to the court, it wasn’t rational to close down a furniture and small appliance store to limit personal interactions but keep Walmart open. This decision didn’t keep people home; it just sent them to Walmart.
While County of Butler v. Wolf was brought by four counties, the court concluded they, as creatures of the state, had no standing to sue the state.


About Lisa Soronen (Full Bio)
Executive Director, State and Local Legal Center
Lisa Soronen is the Executive Director of the State and Local Legal Center (SLLC). Prior to joining the SLLC, Ms. Soronen worked for the National School Boards Association, the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, and clerked for the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.More from Lisa Soronen
-
Webinar
NACo Briefing for Newly Elected Congressional Staff on Counties & the Federal Grant Process
Jun. 8, 2023 , 3:00 pm – 4:00 pmOver the past two years, new federal laws have led to a significant increase in funding becoming available directly to counties. As a result, it is crucial for communities to understand how to navigate these opportunities and maximize these funding streams. -
Webinar
NACo National Membership Call: Update on the Debt Ceiling Deal & County Impact
Jun. 5, 2023 , 4:00 pm – 5:00 pmJoin us for a national membership call overviewing the provisions in the bipartisan debt ceiling deal of relevance to counties. -
Reports & Toolkits
Legislative Analysis for Counties: The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023
The bipartisan debt ceiling deal brings certainty to counties and includes provisions relevant to local leaders, such as spending cuts, permitting reform, work requirements for federal public assistance programs, and reinstating federal student loan payments. -
Blog
Counties & the national debt: What defaulting on the national debt could mean for counties
At some point soon the United States government could default on the national debt. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has stated that if the federal debt ceiling is not raised by June 5, the federal government could miss or delay payments on their obligations resulting in a technical default. -
Webinar
Earmarks 101: What You Need to Know to Get Started
May. 23, 2023 , 1:00 pm – 2:00 pmCongress reinstituted Congressionally Directed Spending (often referred to as earmarks) in early 2021. Since then, hundreds of county governments have secured hundreds of millions in funding during the last three funding cycles. -
Blog
Now accepting policy resolutions and platform changes for the 2023 NACo Annual Conference
In preparation for the National Association of Counties (NACo) 2023 Annual Conference & Exposition, NACo members are invited to submit policy resolutions and platform changes to be considered during the conference.
-
Reports & Toolkits
American Rescue Plan Resource Hub
In March of 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 authorized the $350 billion State and Local Coronavirus Fiscal Recovery Fund (Recovery Fund), which provided $65.1 billion in direct, flexible aid to every county in America.Reports & Toolkitsdocument03092:00 pmReports & Toolkits<p>In March of 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 authorized the $350 billion State and Local Coronavirus Fiscal Recovery Fund (Recovery Fund), which provided $65.1 billion in direct, flexible aid to
-
Basic page
Finance, Pensions & Intergovernmental Affairs Steering Committee
All matters pertaining to the financial resources of counties, fiscal management, federal assistance, municipal borrowing, county revenues, federal budget, federal tax reform, elections and Native American issues. Policy Platform & Resolutions 2022-2023 2022 NACo Legislative Prioritiespagepagepage<p>All matters pertaining to the financial resources of counties, fiscal management, federal assistance, municipal borrowing, county revenues, federal budget, federal tax reform, elections and Native American issues.</p>
Contact
-
Executive Director, State and Local Legal Center
Related Resources
-
Blog
Counties & the national debt: What defaulting on the national debt could mean for counties
At some point soon the United States government could default on the national debt. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has stated that if the federal debt ceiling is not raised by June 5, the federal government could miss or delay payments on their obligations resulting in a technical default. -
Blog
Now accepting policy resolutions and platform changes for the 2023 NACo Annual Conference
In preparation for the National Association of Counties (NACo) 2023 Annual Conference & Exposition, NACo members are invited to submit policy resolutions and platform changes to be considered during the conference. -
Blog
How counties are taking control of constituent communication
This blog post is sponsored by NACo partner Indigov. Enhance your government outreach! Discover the best strategies for effective constituent communication in our latest blog.
-
Reports & Toolkits
Legislative Analysis for Counties: The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023
The bipartisan debt ceiling deal brings certainty to counties and includes provisions relevant to local leaders, such as spending cuts, permitting reform, work requirements for federal public assistance programs, and reinstating federal student loan payments. -
Press Release
Counties Recognize Mental Health Awareness Month
National Association of Counties commission to visit White House, Capitol Hill as counties across the U.S. advocate for mental health policy priorities -
Reports & Toolkits
Myths & Facts: American Rescue Plan Coronavirus State & Local Fiscal Recovery Funds
The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF), part of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), allocated $65.1 billion in direct, flexible aid for every county, parish and borough in America.
More From
-
Legislative Analysis for Counties: The Inflation Reduction Act
The IRA offers counties the opportunity to pursue clean energy initiatives and reduce emissions through new competitive grant programs, local resiliency investments and clean energy tax credits.
Learn More