## Facts

- The Governor proclaimed a disaster emergency in response to COVID-19 under the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Services Code.
- The Governor issued an executive order requiring in-person closure of businesses classified as “non-life-sustaining,” while permitting “life-sustaining” businesses to continue physical operations subject to guidance.
- Several Pennsylvania businesses and an individual, whose operations were classified as non-life-sustaining, alleged severe economic harm and loss of use of their property and sought to invalidate the closure order.
- A waiver/reclassification process allowed businesses to seek “life-sustaining” status; some classifications changed during litigation.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania exercised King’s Bench jurisdiction to resolve the dispute on the merits, treating the controversy as of great public importance and capable of repetition yet likely to evade review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Governor had statutory authority under the Emergency Management Services Code to order statewide closure of non-life-sustaining businesses during the COVID-19 disaster emergency.
2. Whether the temporary closure order constituted a taking of private property without just compensation under the federal or state constitutions.
3. Whether the order and its waiver process violated procedural or substantive due process.
4. Whether the life-sustaining/non-life-sustaining classifications violated equal protection.
5. Whether the order impermissibly burdened First Amendment rights.

## Decision

- The court held the Governor had statutory authority to issue the closure order under the Emergency Management Services Code.
- The court rejected the takings claim, concluding the temporary, emergency closure to protect public health was a valid exercise of police power and not a compensable taking.
- The court rejected procedural due process challenges, finding the emergency conditions justified the lack of pre-deprivation process and that post-deprivation review through the waiver process was sufficient.
- The court rejected substantive due process challenges, holding the order was not arbitrary and bore a real and substantial relation to slowing COVID-19 spread and protecting life.
- The court rejected equal protection challenges under rational-basis review, concluding the classifications were rationally related to mitigating the public-health crisis despite line-drawing imperfections.
- The court rejected First Amendment challenges, treating the order as content-neutral regulation of conduct with alternative communication methods remaining available.
- The court denied extraordinary relief and left the executive order in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Emergency-management statutes may authorize broad executive measures during a declared disaster emergency, and a pandemic can qualify as a “natural disaster” within such statutory schemes.
- Temporary restrictions imposed to prevent serious public harm, issued as public-health measures under the police power, generally do not constitute compensable takings even when they cause substantial economic loss.
- In a rapidly developing public-health emergency, the Constitution may permit action without pre-deprivation notice or hearing when prompt action is required and post-deprivation avenues to challenge classification or application exist.
- Substantive due process review of public-health measures is deferential; a measure is valid if it is not arbitrary and has a real and substantial relation to protecting public health.
- Economic and social classifications receive rational-basis review; imperfect line drawing does not violate equal protection if the classification is not purely arbitrary and relates rationally to a legitimate governmental objective.
- Content-neutral restrictions directed at conduct, with incidental effects on expression or association, are generally permissible when justified by strong public-health interests and limited in scope and duration.

## Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the COVID-19 non-life-sustaining business closure order as a statutorily authorized emergency measure and found no violation of takings, due process, equal protection, or First Amendment protections, denying extraordinary relief and leaving the order in place.


Friends of Danny DeVito v. Wolf, 227 A.3d 872 (Pa. 2020)