SHARE

Covid-19: CT Supreme Court Upholds Legality Of Lamont’s Emergency Orders On Business Closures

The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld Gov. Ned Lamont’s authority to close certain businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic to “ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the state.”

Connecticut Supreme Court

Connecticut Supreme Court

Photo Credit: Google Maps street view

Lamont, who has come under fire for his executive orders limiting or closing some businesses during the pandemic, was challenged by the owner of Casey’s Irish Pub in Milford, who questioned the governor’s public health and civil preparedness orders.

In March, despite an outcry from business owners, Lamont ordered bars and nightclubs closed, while limiting occupancy at restaurants, gyms, salons, and other high-risk locales in an effort to curtail the spread of COVID-19.

Lamont first declared a public health emergency and civil preparedness emergency on March 10, which was renewed on Sept. 2 and will be in effect until Feb. 9, 2021.

In the lawsuit, Casey’s Pub owner Kristine Casey and Black Sheep Enterprise, LLC, declared that Lamont acted beyond his authority when issuing the Executive Orders.

Casey said that she has been closed since March, but has still been paying $3,200 in rent each month and nearly $15,000 monthly in other expenses.


“Casey is hemorrhaging personal savings and borrowing from her father to try to stay afloat,” the lawsuit said. “She has not been able to secure any loans through the Small Business Administration.

“She is fast running out of funds and the shutdown forced upon her by the Governor’s executive orders will put her out of business if it continues much longer.”

Lower courts initially ruled in favor of Lamont in September, prompting Casey’s Pub to take it to the state Supreme Court, which affirmed the original judgment, though the justices empathized with the business owners who have been among the hardest hit during the pandemic.

“Our analysis of the pertinent law and relevant facts leads us to conclude that the governor's challenged actions to date have been constitutional,” they wrote in a four age ruling released on Thursday, Dec. 31. “We acknowledge the incredibly difficult economic situation that the plaintiffs-and thousands of others across the state-are in given the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We also acknowledge, however, that the governor is charged with protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this state, and that COVID-19 presents an unforeseen and unpredictable pandemic that is not a static or isolated crisis.”

to follow Daily Voice Stamford and receive free news updates.

SCROLL TO NEXT ARTICLE