In County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health v. Superior Court (California Restaurant Assoc.), published March 1, 2021, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 4 issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing a trial court to vacate an order. The petitioner county issued an order barring outdoor dining during a surge in the COVID-19 Pandemic. An association of restaurants and an individual restaurant sued the county, seeking writ relief, declaratory and injunctive relief and relief for violation of due process, equal protection, and infringement of the right to liberty under the California Constitution. In the trial court, both sides submitted expert evidence for and against the restriction's relationship to preventing transmission of the virus. The trial court consolidated the actions, and issued an order enjoining the county from enforcing or enacting any county ban on outdoor dining, unless and until its public health officers conduct a risk-benefit analysis and articulate it for the public. The county petitioned the court of appeal for writ relief. The appellate court stayed the trial court's preliminary injunction order and issued an order to show cause. While the writ was pending, the governor lifted a Regional Stay at Home Order that banned outdoor dining, and the county issued an order permitting outdoor dining with significant restrictions.
The appellate court determined the writ proceeding was not moot, because the county may reimpose the prohibition on outdoor dining if the region faces another surge. The appellate court further determined that the trial court erred by failing to apply the proper deferential standard for evaluating state and local agencies' responses to public health emergencies. The 1905 Jacobsen v. Massachusetts U.S. Supreme Court decision held that government action that purports to protect the public health will be upheld, unless it has no real or substantial relation to the object of public health, or beyond all question is a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. The court analyzed recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court analyzing Pandemic restrictions on church services, and determined that the Jacobsen holding is still the rule as to secular businesses. Therefore, the rational-relationship test for substantial due process claims applies; as does the rule of deference to administrative action, limiting that review to determining whether the agency's action has been arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. The court cannot reweigh the evidence, or substitute its own judgment for the agency's. Both the real parties' substantive due process claims and their contention that the county exceeded its emergency powers under Health & Safety Code section 101040 are analyzed under this rational relation test. The trial court found the county's evidence provided a rational basis for the challenged order, but nevertheless adopted the opinion of the real parties' expert that a health order required a risk-benefit analysis. Mandating such a nebulous requirement, the appellate court ruled, is inconsistent with the determination of whether the agency's actions were arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidence. Requiring public agencies to undertake such studies would take time and resources that may not be available when swift government action might be taking in response to surging infection, hospitalization, and death. Because the real parties failed to meet their burden of showing the county's order was arbitrary, capricious, or without rational basis, they cannot ultimately succeed on the merits. The trial court therefore erred in granting them injunctive relief.
The appellate court also rejected the individual restaurant's argument that the order violated freedom of assembly. Even assuming the restaurant has a freedom of assembly, the county order does not regulate assembly based on expressive conduct, and is based on a legitimate and substantial government interest. Further, it leaves open alternative channels for assembling, such as video conferencing and socially-distanced in-person gatherings.
Comments