Eugene, Ore. — Several businesses across Oregon are suing Gov. Kate Brown and Oregon’s Public Health Director Lillian Shirley, challenging the state’s coronavirus-related shutdown orders.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the Eugene division of Oregon’s U.S. District Court and first reported by The Daily Emerald, argues that the governor’s orders to shut down businesses violated the business owners’ constitutional rights and asks a judge to make two of the orders null and prevent state leaders from enforcing them.
Among the businesses suing are Lotus House, a lingerie shop in Roseburg; PDX Muscle, a 24-hour gym in Beaverton; and Kuebler’s Furniture, Inc. in Salem. No Eugene-based businesses are listed as plaintiffs in the case.
Two of the rights the plaintiffs argue were violated fall under the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment, which protects against private property being taken for public use.
The plaintiffs argue the state seized their property by shuttering them, taking them for “asserted public use of risk minimization,” the court documents state.
The businesses reference Oregon Health Authority data showing a decline in cases or “flattening the curve” of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“(Brown and Shirley) will assert that this pattern proves the success of the policies embodied in the Executive Orders, but there is no scientific evidence associating particular measures with particular reductions in the spread of the disease,” the documents state.
They argue that “the entire set of restrictions is not necessary to prevent the overwhelming of health facilities in Oregon. These data also show that the initial surge of cases is over, and has been for weeks.”
For these reasons, among others, the businesses are requesting a judge make null two specific executive orders: order 20-07, which prohibits on-premises consumption at businesses and prohibits gatherings more than 25 people, and order 20-12, the stay-home order.
The plaintiffs also are looking for the court to order the state be prohibited from enforcing or threatening to enforce the disciplinary actions outlined for those who act against the orders.
