Pandemic Restriction Challenges Face Uphill Battle in California

February 22, 2021 Articles

On Dec.16, 2020, in Midway Venture LLC v. County of San Diego, the San Diego Superior Court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of two COVID-19-related California public health restrictions as applied to two adult entertainment businesses and all other San Diego County businesses with restaurant service.

The California Court of Appeal did not take long to weigh in.

On Jan. 22, in the first published court of appeal opinion regarding the constitutionality of California's COVID-19 public health restrictions as applied to businesses, the Fourth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal reversed.[1]

The court of appeal's opinion illustrates the steep and narrow path to challenging California's COVID-19-related public health restrictions, even in connection with activities protected by the First Amendment, albeit in its outer ambit.[2]

The Trial Court's Opinion

Pacers and Cheetahs — two San Diego adult entertainment businesses with restaurant service — alleged that enforcement of California's regional stay at home order[3] and Blueprint for a Safer Economy infringed their First Amendment right to expressive conduct. The plaintiffs had been barred from staging live performances for most of the pandemic and attempts to restart performances had been met with cease-and-desist orders from local authorities.

The trial court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims and issued a preliminary injunction. It noted that nude dancing constitutes expressive conduct warranting First Amendment protection.

Moreover, citing a statement by a San Diego County public health official that "penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong," the court determined that the county had offered no evidence that San Diego restaurants present any health risk.

The court also questioned whether any rational nexus existed between restaurants offering live entertainment and hospital capacity in the Southern California region — the metric that triggered more stringent restrictions under the regional stay at home order.

Finally, although the plaintiffs had focused on the First Amendment protection applicable to nude dancing, the trial court extended the injunction to all San Diego County businesses with restaurant service.

The Court of Appeal's Reversal

The court of appeal reversed on three principal grounds. 

First, the court of appeal found that extending the injunction to all San Diego County businesses with restaurant service violated due process. The plaintiffs had only challenged the public health restrictions with regard to live entertainment, and the government defendants had been given no notice that the broader restaurant service restrictions were being challenged. 

Second, the court of appeal determined that neither of the public health restrictions ran afoul of the First Amendment.[4] In fact, the court held that the regional stay at home order, which prohibited restaurant service beyond takeout and delivery, did not even implicate the First Amendment.

Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's 1986 opinion, Arcara v. Cloud Books Inc.,[5] the court concluded that the First Amendment applies only when "it was conduct with a significant expressive element that drew the legal remedy in the first place," or "where a statute based on a nonexpressive activity has the inevitable effect of singling out those engaged in expressive activity."

The Fourth District concluded that it was the threat of COVID-19 that prompted the regulations; there was no showing that conduct with a significant expressive element drew the restrictions. The court further found that the breadth of the regional stay at home order was inconsistent with any singling out of expressive activity.

Exceptions for religious and political gathering did not demonstrate discrimination against live adult entertainment because the restrictions on entertainment were triggered by the plaintiffs' restaurant service — not by the expressive conduct — and applied equally to all restaurants. 

Because the First Amendment was inapplicable, the court of appeal held that only rational basis review applied to the regional stay at home order. Although it did not determine whether that standard had been met — it had not been argued in the trial court — the court confirmed that rational basis is an "exceedingly low standard."

A statutory classification survives rational basis review if "there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification."[6]

The court of appeal determined that the First Amendment did apply to the Blueprint for a Safer Economy order, likely because the blueprint expressly regulated live entertainment at restaurants. Nonetheless, the court found that the blueprint met First Amendment requirements.

Because the state's purpose in regulating live entertainment through the blueprint was unrelated to the suppression of expression, the court applied the U.S. Supreme Court's less stringent four-part test from U.S. v. O'Brien,[7] decided in 1968, rather than the more demanding standards that apply if the government's interest related to expression.

Under O'Brien, courts inquire whether: (1) the regulation is within the government's power; (2) the regulation "furthers an important or substantial government interest"; (3) "the government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression"; and (4) "the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest."

The Fourth District determined that the blueprint met this test. The plaintiffs had conceded the first and second factors in the trial court. The court noted that the government's interest was in preventing the spread of disease — not in the suppression of expression.

The court quoted the U.S. Supreme Court's 1989 decision Ward v. Rock Against Racism[8] to elaborate on what sorts of restrictions on First Amendment freedoms are no greater than essential: "So long as the means chosen are not substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government's interest ... the regulation will not be invalid simply because a court concludes that the government's interest could be adequately served by some less-speech-restrictive alternative."

The blueprint's restrictions on live entertainment at restaurants met this standard because the state and county parties had shown that public gatherings create a high risk of COVID-19 transmission and the restrictions only limited live entertainment to the same extent they limited restaurant service.

The lack of COVID-19 cases traced to the establishments was not dispositive: "It is the risk of COVID-19 transmission that prompted the restrictions on the adult entertainment businesses. The state and county need not wait until an outbreak has actually occurred at a specific business location."[9]

Third, the court of appeal found that the trial court's preliminary injunction order was overly vague. The injunction purported to allow restaurants to continue operation "subject to protocols that are no greater than is essential to further Defendants' response to control the spread of COVID."

Because the trial court's order did not provide guidance regarding which COVID-19 protocols are essential, it did not provide sufficient guidance to either businesses or the government.


While the court of appeal's opinion in Midway reflects the unique injunction at issue, it also illustrates the narrow grounds upon which businesses might challenge public health restrictions designed to combat the spread of COVID-19.

Even businesses plausibly engaged in conduct protected by the First Amendment will face significant challenges. It is not enough that no COVID-19 cases have been traced to the business, nor is it enough that the government did not use the least restrictive means possible to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Instead, the public health restrictions related to COVID-19 that have been overturned on First Amendment grounds have singled out protected First Amended activity. For example in November 2020, in Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo,[10] the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated New York state public health restrictions on religious services because "they single[d] out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment."[11] 

Other California businesses have challenged California public health restrictions on a variety of other grounds, including under the U.S. Constitution's equal protection, takings and due process clauses, and the California Constitution's right to liberty clause. Success has been elusive.

For example, in May 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Best Supplement Guide LLC v. Newsom[12] recognized "neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit has ever held that the right to pursue work is a fundamental right, entitled to heightened constitutional scrutiny."[13]

While the court of appeal in Midway did not consider these alternative grounds, courts in these cases have made it clear that the path to a successful challenge on non-First Amendment grounds is also narrow. Time will tell whether courts are more receptive to constitutional challenges to California's COVID-19-related public health restrictions as the public health crisis dissipates.

[1] Midway Venture LLC v. Cty. of San Diego , 60 Cal. App. 5th 58 (2021).

[2] Krontz v. City of San Diego , 136 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1132 (2006).

[3] The Regional Stay at Home Order was so called because it broke the state into regions and set restrictions based on the hospital bed capacity in a given region.

[4] The opinion does not address whether the result would differ under the California Constitution's free speech protections, but past cases analyzing restrictions on nude dancing rejected "arguments [that] the California Constitution grants broader protection." Krontz, 136 Cal. App. 4th at 1140.

[5] Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc. , 478 U.S. 697 (1986).

[6] F.C.C. v. Beach Communications, Inc. , 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993).

[7] U.S. v. O'Brien , 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

[8] Ward v. Rock Against Racism , 491 U.S. 781 (1989).

[9] Midway at 59.

[10] Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo , __ U.S. __, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020).

[11] On February 5, the U.S. Supreme Court also enjoined enforcement of the Blueprint's ban on indoor religious services in the counties most affected by COVID-19 while the Court considers hearing the case. S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, No. 20A136, 2021 WL 406258 (U.S. Feb. 5, 2021). The Court allowed capacity restrictions and bans on singing and chanting to stay in place. Id.

[12] Best Supplement Guide LLC v. Newsom, No. 2:20-CV-00965-JAM-CKD, 2020 WL 2615022 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2020).

[13] 2020 WL 2615022 at *6 (quoting Sagana v. Tenorio, 384 F.3d 731, 743 (9th Cir. 2004)) (rejecting constitutional challenges by a gym to state public health restrictions).

Firm Highlights


Reporting Dispute Claims Within Closely Held Wineries

Many wineries operate as closely held companies, meaning they’re owned by an individual or small group of shareholders, who are often members of the same family. Disputes regarding ownership interests can arise, particularly when directors...

Read More

Farella 2024 Partner Elevations: Cynthia Castillo and Greg LeSaint

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel is pleased to announce the election of two lawyers to partnership effective Jan. 1: Cynthia Castillo and Greg LeSaint. “We are thrilled to elevate Cynthia and...

Read More

Compelling Employees to Arbitration Suddenly Has Less of an Upside

On July 17, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Techs Inc., as to whether employees still have standing to sue for "non-individual" PAGA claims when they have been...

Read More

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law FirmsĀ® Rankings

Read More

Ensuring Your Website Complies With the ADA

In today’s digital age, having an online presence is crucial for businesses, including wineries, breweries, and other beverage companies. Accordingly, it’s essential to ensure that your beverage website meets federal standards for accessibility to avoid...

Read More

Wire Fraud Victims Have New Reporting Factors After Ciminelli

Originally published by  Bloomberg Law . Courts around the country have seen an influx of challenges to indictments and convictions since the US Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in  Ciminelli v. United States  last May...

Read More

Disputes Between Shareholders May Not Be Governed by Fiduciary Duties but Could Be Covered by Insurance

(As published in Private Company Director ) Disputes regarding ownership interests often arise in the context of closely held corporations, particularly when directors, officers, or majority shareholders sell or acquire ownership interests in the...

Read More

Major Decision Affects Law of Scraping and Online Data Collection, Meta Platforms v. Bright Data

On January 23, 2024, the court in Meta Platforms Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd. , Case No. 3:23-cv-00077-EMC (N.D. Cal.), issued a summary judgment ruling with potentially wide-ranging ramifications for the law of scraping and...

Read More

Scraping Battles: Meta Loses Legal Effort to Halt Harvesting of Personal Profiles

Alex Reese spoke to Matt Fleischer-Black of  Cybersecurity Law Report about the Meta v. Bright Data decision and its impact on U.S. scraping case law. Read the article here (paywall or trial).

Read More

Farella Wins Complete Defense Ruling at Trial for Smart Meter Technology Company

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel secured a complete defense victory for a smart meter technology company following a two-week bench trial in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California...

Read More