Lewis v. Walz

Background

Jason Lewis and Jason Lewis for Senate, the nonprofit corporation identified as the principal campaign committee supporting Jason Lewis’s election to the U.S. Senate, sued Governor Timothy J. Walz in his official capacity. They based their claims on alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments arising from executive orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The challenged orders temporarily required people to stay home except for specified activities, discouraged unnecessary travel, and limited the size of indoor and outdoor gatherings. The orders allowed travel into and out of Minnesota. The stay-at-home order expired on May 18, 2020, and later orders continued to impose gathering limits.

Claims and Motion

The plaintiffs alleged in Counts One and Two that the executive orders violated their constitutional right to travel by limiting their ability to travel to locations within Minnesota to exercise First Amendment rights, including campaigning. They acknowledged that they were not relying on a right to travel into or out of Minnesota.

In Count Three, the plaintiffs alleged that the orders violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because the campaign committee was treated differently from certain businesses and activities designated as critical or exempt, including weddings, funerals, and services.

Governor Walz moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. He also raised arguments concerning mootness, standing, and immunity.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ travel claims were based on alleged limits on travel within Minnesota. The Supreme Court had recognized a constitutional right to travel between states, but the court stated that the Supreme Court had not defined or recognized a constitutional right to travel within a state, and that the Eighth Circuit had declined to recognize such a right. Because the plaintiffs did not identify a recognized component of the constitutional right to travel, the court held that they had not stated a travel claim.

The court also held that, even if the executive orders implicated a protected right to travel, the orders satisfied the deferential framework from Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts for reviewing emergency public-health measures. The court found that the restrictions had a real and substantial relationship to the COVID-19 public-health crisis and that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged that the gathering limits were an obvious and serious invasion of constitutional rights.

As to equal protection, the court explained that the Equal Protection Clause does not itself create substantive rights. Applying the emergency-public-health framework, the court found no allegation or evidence that the gathering limits were a pretext or discriminated based on a suspect classification. The court also found that the orders treated political candidates and their campaigns alike, and that the plaintiffs had not shown that a political campaign committee was similarly situated to places or businesses providing space for weddings, funerals, or services. The court further concluded that the gathering limits and related exceptions were rational in light of the pandemic.

The court stated that it did not need to decide the governor’s additional arguments concerning mootness, standing, and immunity.

Disposition

The court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. It directed that judgment be entered accordingly. Because this was a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, the classification is procedural_order under the stated convention, even though the court also discussed why the pleaded constitutional claims were insufficient.