Minn. Voters Alliance v. Walz

492 F.Supp.3d 822

MINNESOTA VOTERS ALLIANCE ; Andrew Cilek; Kim Crockett; Craig Anderson; Yvonne Hundshamer; and Craig Jones, Plaintiffs,

v.Tim WALZ, in his official capacity as Governor of Minnesota; Steve Simon, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Minnesota; Mark V. Chapin, in his official capacity as Hennepin County Auditor ; Christopher A. Samuel, in his official capacity as Ramsey County Auditor; Keith Ellison, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Minnesota; Mike Freeman, in his official capacity as Hennepin County Attorney; and John Choi, in his official capacity as Ramsey County Attorney, Defendants.

Case No. 20-CV-1688 (PJS/ECW)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Signed October 2, 2020

Erick G. Kaardal, MOHRMAN, KAARDAL & ERICKSON, P.A., for plaintiffs.

Elizabeth C. Kramer, Megan J. McKenzie, and Kevin A. Finnerty, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, for defendants Tim Walz, Steve Simon, and Keith Ellison.

Kelly K. Pierce and Jeffrey M. Wojciechowski, HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, for defendants Mike Freeman and Mark V. Chapin.

Robert B. Roche, RAMSEY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, for defendants John Choi and Christopher A. Samuel.

ORDER

Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge

On July 22, 2020, Governor Tim Walz issued Executive Order 20-81, which requires Minnesotans to wear face coverings in indoor public settings in order to control the spread of COVID-19. Plaintiffs—the Minnesota Voters Alliance and five political activists—have brought this action against Governor Walz and other public officials¹ to challenge the legality of Executive Order 20-81. Plaintiffs have framed this action as primarily relating to the impact of Executive Order 20-81 on their right to vote in the upcoming election. In fact, though, plaintiffs argue that Executive Order 20-81 is invalid in its entirety—i.e., that Governor Walz does not have authority to order any person to wear a face covering in any indoor public setting. Indeed, plaintiffs go even further: Plaintiffs argue that it is illegal for any person to choose to wear a face covering in a public place for the purpose of preventing the spread of COVID-19.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court held a lengthy hearing on that motion on September 23, 2020. For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 is a deadly disease caused by a virus that is easily spread between people through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks. Kramer Decl. Ex. 2. It appears that the virus may also be transmitted via respiratory microdroplets that can travel in the air for tens of meters and remain airborne for hours. Id. Exs. 3, 4. As a result, COVID-19 is easily transmitted in indoor environments, particularly if those environments are crowded or lack adequate ventilation. Id. Ex. 3. The virus may be transmitted by infected people who have no symptoms and do not even know that they are infected. Id. Exs. 5, 8.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic. Id. Ex. 6. Since the start of the pandemic, over 7.2 million cases of COVID-19 in the United States have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") and over 206,000 Americans have died, including over 2,000 Minnesotans.² There is currently no cure and no vaccine. Id. Exs. 1, 5. In response to this public-health crisis, the President declared a national emergency on March 13, 2020 and later approved major disaster declarations in all 50 states—the first time a president had done so in the history of the United States. Id. Exs. 9, 10.

B. Face Coverings

Federal and state health officials recommend face coverings to slow the spread of COVID-19. According to CDC officials, "the more individuals wear cloth face coverings in public places where they may be close together, the more the entire community is protected." Id. Ex. 12. Recent studies have found that face-covering mandates are associated with large declines in the growth rate of COVID-19 infections and fatalities. Id. Exs. 21, 22, 24. One study estimated that a nationwide mandate would significantly benefit the economy by substituting a mask mandate for renewed lockdowns that would subtract nearly 5% from GDP. Id. Ex. 24. Projections by the University of Washington indicate that universal use of face coverings would save thousands of lives in Minnesota. Id. Ex. 23.

It is important to stress that plaintiffs do not deny any of this. Plaintiffs do not deny the existence of COVID-19, or that it is a dangerous disease, or that it is easily spread (including by people who do not know that they are infected), or that face coverings slow its spread and thus save lives. To the contrary, plaintiffs emphasize that "[n]o one in this case is saying that mask wearing isn't a good thing." ECF No. 1 at 1–2.

C. Executive Order 20-81

On March 13, 2020, the same day that the President declared a national emergency, Governor Walz declared a peacetime emergency in Minnesota. See Executive Order 20-01; Minn. Stat. § 12.31, subd. 2(a). Among the actions that Governor Walz has taken pursuant to his emergency powers is issuing Executive Order 20-81 ("EO 20-81"), which requires Minnesotans to wear face coverings while present in indoor businesses and public indoor spaces and while waiting outdoors to enter an indoor business or public indoor space. Am. Compl. Ex. 1 [hereinafter "EO 20-81"] ¶ 9(a). Certain individuals are exempt from the mandate, including individuals with physical or mental conditions that make it unreasonable for them to wear a face covering, workers for whom a face covering would create a job hazard, and children under the age of six. EO 20-81 ¶ 8. An individual who willfully violates EO 20-81 is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. EO 20-81 ¶ 20(a).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

In reviewing a motion for a preliminary injunction, a court must consider four factors: (1) the movant's likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant if the injunction is not granted; (3) the balance between that harm and the harm that granting the injunction will inflict on the other parties; and (4) the public interest. Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc. , 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc). "A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and the burden of establishing the propriety of an injunction is on the movant." Watkins Inc. v. Lewis , 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003) (internal citation omitted).

B. Likelihood of Success

The main thrust of plaintiffs’ amended complaint is that it is impossible for anyone to enter an indoor public setting in Minnesota without committing a crime. On the one hand, EO 20-81 makes it unlawful not to wear a face covering in an indoor public setting. On the other hand, according to plaintiffs, a Minnesota statute makes it unlawful to wear a face covering in any public place, including any indoor public setting. Specifically, Minn. Stat. § 609.735 provides:

A person whose identity is concealed by the person in a public place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise, unless based on religious beliefs, or incidental to amusement, entertainment, protection from weather, or medical treatment, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Because EO 20-81 and § 609.735 are in direct conflict, plaintiffs argue, they cannot enter an indoor public place—such as a polling place, or a meeting hall, or even a grocery store—without committing a crime. As a result, plaintiffs contend that they are chilled from engaging in political activities that are protected by the First Amendment, such as voting in person, campaigning in public, and associating with others in indoor settings.

Plaintiffs also allege that EO 20-81, in combination with guidance from the Secretary of State concerning how to implement EO 20-81 at polling places, violates the Elections Clause in Article I, § 4 of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs further allege that EO 20-81, standing alone, violates the First Amendment and various provisions of the Minnesota Constitution. Before addressing the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, the Court must address a number of thorny jurisdictional issues.

1. Jurisdictional Issues

a. Standing

Defendants argue that plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail in this litigation because they lack standing. "Standing to sue is a doctrine rooted in the traditional understanding of a case or controversy." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016). Standing consists of three elements: "[(1)] an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Id. "To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest’ that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’ " Id. at 1548 (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) ). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing standing and must clearly allege facts demonstrating each element. Id. at 1547 ; Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus , 573 U.S. 149, 158, 134 S.Ct. 2334, 189 L.Ed.2d 246 (2014).

i. Ramsey Defendants

Under Minnesota law, county attorneys "shall ... prosecute felonies ... and, to the extent prescribed by law, gross misdemeanors, misdemeanors, petty misdemeanors, and violations of municipal ordinances, charter provisions and rules or regulations[.]" Minn. Stat. § 388.051, subd. 1(3) ; see also Minn. Stat. § 484.87, subd. 3 ("Except as provided in subdivision 2 and as otherwise provided by law, violations of state law that are petty misdemeanors or misdemeanors must be prosecuted by the attorney of the statutory or home rule charter city where the violation is...