Do the COVID-19 Shutdowns Constitute Takings Or Due Process Violations?

Ballard Spahr LLP
Contact

Ballard Spahr LLP

A class-action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania late last week alleges that Governor Wolf’s orders closing non-life sustaining business constitute a taking requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, and that they violate due process. Given the extreme nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and the breadth of relief sought, the case raises profound implications about the scope of the government’s police power. Because this case arises under federal law and many other governors have issued similar orders, it could have implications beyond Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs acknowledge that the shutdown orders are justified by a legitimate public purpose. But they claim the orders amount to a regulatory taking because they deprive the businesses of any economically beneficial use of their property, and that the Fifth Amendment entitles them to just compensation. The representative of the business class is Schulmerich Bells, LLC (Bells), the “oldest manufacturer of orchestral quality musical hand bells and hand chimes in the United States.” Bells claims it is unable to carry out its business because it has been denied access to its manufacturing and repair space in the midst of its busy season.

The plaintiffs’ takings claim faces many obstacles. First and foremost, requiring the government to compensate individual businesses would impose massive financial liability and seriously impede the exercise of the government’s police power as it faces a once-in-a-century pandemic. Second, courts have held that temporary obstruction of access to private property is not compensable under the Fifth Amendment. Third, the plaintiffs will have to show that their damages are special and peculiar, a requirement of a regulatory takings claim. Fourth, it may be difficult for plaintiffs to certify a class given the wide array of businesses they seek to represent.

The case is Schulmerich Bells, LLC et al. v. Wolf, Case 2:20-cv-01637 (E.D. Pa. March 26, 2020).

The Ballard Spahr Eminent Domain practice group will continue to track this and similar cases. 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ballard Spahr LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Ballard Spahr LLP
Contact
more
less

Ballard Spahr LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.