## Facts

- Between March and May 2020, Delaware Governor John Carney issued a series of emergency orders to address the COVID-19 public health emergency, including limits that affected in-person religious services and occupancy at houses of worship.
- Two Delaware pastors (David Landow and Alan Hines) alleged that the restrictions burdened religious exercise and treated religious gatherings less favorably than some secular activities.
- The pastors asserted violations of the U.S. Constitution (including the First Amendment and Equal Protection principles) and the Delaware Constitution’s protections for religious liberty.
- The challenged restrictions were lifted before the pastors pursued their damages-focused action in Superior Court, and Delaware had moved to less restrictive measures.
- The pastors first filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking equitable relief; that court dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The pastors then proceeded in the Delaware Superior Court, seeking (among other relief) damages for alleged past constitutional violations.
- Governor Carney moved to dismiss, arguing (1) the equitable and declaratory claims were moot or otherwise nonjusticiable because the challenged orders were no longer in effect, and (2) he was immune from personal liability for actions taken under Delaware’s emergency powers during the pandemic.

## Issues

1. Whether claims seeking declaratory (and related equitable) relief presented a live controversy after the COVID-19 worship restrictions had been rescinded and plaintiffs alleged no non-speculative threat of renewed harm.
2. Whether the Governor was immune from damages liability for discretionary decisions made while exercising statutory emergency authority during the COVID-19 response, even if the restrictions were later alleged to be unconstitutional.

## Decision

- The Superior Court granted the Governor’s motion to dismiss.
- The court dismissed the declaratory/equitable claims as nonjusticiable because the challenged restrictions had expired and any recurrence of similar limits depended on future events that were too speculative to create a present case or controversy.
- The court dismissed the damages claims on immunity grounds, concluding that the Governor’s issuance of COVID-19 emergency orders was a discretionary act taken under emergency authority and protected from personal-capacity damages liability.

## Legal Principles

- Delaware courts will not issue declaratory or injunctive relief without a live controversy; once an executive order has expired, a challenge generally fails absent a concrete, imminent likelihood that the same plaintiff will again be subject to the same restriction.
- Under Delaware emergency-management and related immunity doctrines, public officials are protected from personal damages liability for discretionary actions taken in good-faith execution of emergency responsibilities, even when those actions are later attacked as unlawful.
- Damages suits against high-level executive officials for early-emergency policy decisions face strong immunity barriers because courts are reluctant to impose personal monetary liability for discretionary judgments made under urgent conditions and incomplete information.

## Conclusion

The Delaware Superior Court dismissed pastors’ challenges to Delaware’s rescinded COVID-19 restrictions on religious services because no live dispute remained for declaratory or equitable relief, and it held that gubernatorial immunity barred damages claims arising from the Governor’s discretionary emergency orders issued during the pandemic.


In re COVID-Related Restrictions on Religious Services, 302 A.3d 464 (2023)