Introduction

In the landmark case Big Tyme Investments, L.L.C. et al. v. Edwards, 985 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2021), a coalition of 21 bar owners in Louisiana challenged Governor John Bel Edwards' emergency proclamation restricting bar operations amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs contended that the Governor's "Bar Closure Order," which prohibited on-premises consumption of alcohol and food at bars while allowing such activities at restaurants, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case scrutinizes the balance between public health measures and constitutional rights, setting a significant precedent for future governmental responses to public health crises.

Summary of the Judgment

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decisions of both the Eastern and Western District Courts of Louisiana, which had denied the bar owners' motions for preliminary injunctive relief. The appellate court held that the differential treatment of bars (Class A-General permits) and restaurants (Class A-Restaurant permits) was rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest of curbing the spread of COVID-19. The court applied the framework established in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Fifth Circuit's own precedent in In re Abbott, determining that the Bar Closure Order did not constitute a "plain, palpable invasion" of constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily relied on two seminal cases: Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), and the Fifth Circuit's own decision in In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 772 (2020).

• Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts: This 1905 Supreme Court case upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws during a smallpox epidemic, establishing that individual liberties could be curtailed to protect public health.
• In re Abbott: In this Fifth Circuit case, the court applied the framework from Jacobson to evaluate Texas Governor Abbott's order postponing non-essential surgeries, including abortions, during COVID-19. The court reaffirmed that public health measures are subject to rational basis review, ensuring they are "rationally related" to the goal of mitigating the public health crisis.
• Other Cases: The judgment also referenced Spell v. Edwards, emphasizing that the holding in this case does not render the bar owners' claims moot, as the differential treatment remains in effect under subsequent proclamations.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed the rational basis review standard to assess the Equal Protection claim. Under this standard, the government action must be "rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose." The court examined whether the differentiation between bars and restaurants served the legitimate aim of reducing COVID-19 transmission.

• Classification Based on Permits: The Bar Closure Order classified businesses based on their alcohol and food service permits (Class A-General vs. Class A-Restaurant). This classification was scrutinized to determine if it was based on a legitimate interest and if it was rational.
• Rational Connection: The court found that bars, primarily serving alcohol with less emphasis on food, posed a higher risk for virus transmission due to factors like socializing habits, louder environments leading to closer proximity, and the tendency for patrons to be younger adults who might be asymptomatic carriers.
• Empirical Justifications: Testimonies from public health officials, including Dr. Alexander Billioux, supported the classification by highlighting increased COVID-19 cases linked to bars and aligning Louisiana's measures with national and international public health guidelines.
• No Suspect Classification: The court determined that the classification did not involve a suspect class or a fundamental right, thus rational basis review was appropriate.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's deference to executive authority during public health emergencies, particularly when measures are supported by scientific evidence and public health expertise. By upholding differential treatment based on the nature of business operations, the court sets a precedent that allows for nuanced public health interventions without violating constitutional protections under the Equal Protection Clause.

• Future Public Health Measures: Governments can implement targeted restrictions based on the nature of businesses, provided they can demonstrate a rational connection to public health objectives.
• Equal Protection Claims in Emergencies: Businesses and individuals must demonstrate more than a mere difference in treatment; they must show that the classification lacks any rational basis tied to legitimate governmental interests.
• Judicial Deference: Courts will continue to defer to public health officials' expertise when evaluating the necessity and reasonableness of emergency measures.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Equal Protection Clause

A provision in the Fourteenth Amendment that requires states to treat individuals in similar situations equally. It prevents arbitrary discrimination by the government.

Rational Basis Review

The lowest level of judicial scrutiny used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of a law. Under this standard, the law is presumed constitutional as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Class A-General (AG) vs. Class A-Restaurant (AR) Permits

- **Class A-General (AG):** Permits primarily for bars that serve alcohol but are not required to serve food. Minors are prohibited from these premises. - **Class A-Restaurant (AR):** Permits for establishments that must derive at least 50% of their revenue from food and nonalcoholic beverages, blending restaurant and bar services.

Preliminary Injunctive Relief

A temporary court order issued early in a lawsuit to prevent potential harm before a final decision is made.

Mootness

A legal doctrine stating that a court will not decide cases where the issue has already been resolved or rendered irrelevant.

Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit's affirmation in Big Tyme Investments v. Edwards underscores the judiciary's role in balancing individual rights against public health imperatives during crises. By upholding the Bar Closure Order under the Equal Protection Clause, the court acknowledged the government's authority to enact targeted restrictions aimed at mitigating the spread of COVID-19. This decision not only reinforces established legal precedents but also provides a framework for evaluating similar public health measures in the future, ensuring that such actions remain within constitutional bounds while addressing emergent threats effectively.