The North Carolina Supreme Court has issued a ruling in a case challenging the constitutionality of executive orders issued by former Governor Roy Cooper during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case, *Howell v. Cooper*, centered on restrictions placed on bars and nightclubs, and whether these measures violated the business owners’ right to earn a living. The court’s decision, while modifying and affirming the lower court’s ruling, clarified the standards for such claims and set the stage for further examination of the case.
The Core of the Dispute
The crux of the lawsuit, brought by bar owners and related businesses, was that the Governor’s executive orders, implemented in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, excessively limited their ability to operate, thereby infringing upon their constitutional rights to earn a living. The orders, which included mandatory closures and restrictions on alcohol sales, were challenged under the “Fruits of Their Own Labor Clause” and the “Law of the Land Clause” of the North Carolina Constitution. These clauses protect individuals’ rights to conduct lawful businesses and ensure due process under the law.
Sovereign Immunity and “Corum Claims”
A key legal hurdle in the case was the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which generally protects the state from being sued. However, the court recognized an exception for what are known as “Corum claims.” These claims allow individuals to sue the state directly under the state constitution if they allege a violation of their constitutional rights by a state actor, causing injury for which there is no other adequate state remedy. The court found that the bar owners’ claims could potentially fall under this exception.
The Court’s Analysis: Is it a “Colorable” Claim?
The Supreme Court focused on whether the bar owners’ claims were “colorable,” meaning they presented facts that, if true, could support a violation of their constitutional rights. The court applied the standards set forth in the *Kinsley v. Ace Speedway Racing, Ltd.* case, which outlined the criteria for determining the validity of state actions that affect the right to earn a living.
The Pleading Requirements: What Must Be Alleged?
To have a viable claim, the bar owners needed to show:
* State Action: That the restrictions were imposed by the state (through the Governor’s executive orders). This was not in dispute.
* Colorable Constitutional Claims: That the executive orders violated their constitutional rights. This was the central issue.
* Absence of Other Remedies: That there was no other adequate state remedy available. This was also not in dispute.
The Court’s Findings
The court found that the bar owners had met the requirements for a “colorable” claim. It held that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts that, if proven, could demonstrate a violation of their rights to earn a living. The court emphasized that at the pleading stage, it must treat the factual allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. The court’s opinion highlighted the restrictions imposed on the bars, including closures and limitations on alcohol sales, as potentially imposing a significant burden on their businesses.
The “Reasonably Necessary” Standard
The court reiterated that for a state action that burdens the right to earn a living to be constitutional, it must be “reasonably necessary to promote the accomplishment of a public good, or to prevent the infliction of a public harm.” This involves a “fact-intensive analysis” that considers both the effectiveness of the state action and the extent of the burden it places on the businesses. The court will need to decide if the measures were reasonable, given all the available options, when it makes its final decision.
The “Least Intrusive Remedy” Argument Rejected
The court also addressed the defendants’ argument that the bar owners should have sought the “least intrusive remedy” available. The court rejected this argument, stating that the least intrusive remedy is a consideration that arises *after* a constitutional violation has been proven, not as a requirement for initially bringing a claim.
The Dissenting Opinion: A Different View
Justice Earls wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority was expanding the scope of the “Fruits of Their Own Labor Clause” and inviting meritless litigation. Justice Earls contended that the Governor’s actions were a reasonable response to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, and that the restrictions, while impacting the bar owners, were not excessive. The dissent emphasized the uncertainty and urgency faced by the Governor during the pandemic and argued that the court should not second-guess those decisions with the benefit of hindsight.
Next Steps and Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision means the case will continue in the lower courts. The bar owners will have the opportunity to present evidence and argue their case, and the trial court will ultimately determine whether the executive orders were, in fact, unconstitutional. This case has important implications for the balance between public health measures and economic rights, particularly in times of crisis. The court’s decision provides some guidance on how to evaluate such claims, but the specific outcome of this case will depend on the evidence presented and the trial court’s application of the legal standards.
