Casey v. Lamont
Citations
- 338 Conn. 479
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 28-9 (a)), ''[i]n the event of serious disaster . . . the Governor may proclaim that a state of civil preparedness emergency exists . . . .'' The plaintiffs, the owners of a pub located in Connecticut, sought relief in connection with the issuance of certain executive orders by the defen- dant, the governor of the state of Connecticut, amid the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the pandemic, the governor proclaimed a civil preparedness emergency pursuant to § 28-9 (a) and issued the challenged executive orders in an attempt to contain and mitigate the spread of COVID-19, including orders that limited various activities at bars and restaurants throughout the state. The plaintiffs closed their pub after determining that it would not be profitable to operate the pub while complying with the executive orders. The plaintiffs sought an injunction precluding the enforcement of the executive orders and a judgment declaring the orders unconstitutional. The trial court denied the plain- tiffs' requests for relief and rendered judgment for the governor. The plaintiffs appealed to this court upon certification by the Chief Justice pursuant to statute (§ 52-265a) that a matter of substantial public interest was involved. Held: 480 OCTOBER, 2021 338 Conn. 479 Casey v. Lamont 1. The governor did not exceed his statutory authority when he issued the challenged executive orders: on the basis of the text and legislative history of both § 28-9 (a) and another related statute (§ 28-1 (2)) that refers to civil preparedness emergencies under § 28-9 and that defines the term ''major disaster,'' as well as a declaration by the president of the United States that the COVID-19 pandemic was of sufficient severity and magnitude to be deemed a major disaster under federal law that embraces a narrower definition of ''major disaster'' than that set forth in § 28-1 (2), this court concluded that the COVID-19 pandemic consti- tuted a ''serious disaster'' for which the governo
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.