LOS ANGELES (CBSLA) — Some small business owners fed up with how Safer-At-Home orders are impacting them financially have filed a lawsuit against California Gov. Gavin Newsom, among other officials.

Cielito Lindo restaurant and King’s Mobile Pet Spa are among the seven businesses named in the suit.

They’re being represented by prominent attorney Mark Geragos, who is asking a federal judge to strike down the orders and have state and county governments pay for losses.

“Just because you can cite that people have died from this does not mean you get to suspend the constitution,” Geragos said.

Along with Newsom, Geragos is also suing Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, the Sheriffs and the Board of Supervisors in L.A., Orange, Riverside and Ventura Counties.

The suit claims that the orders that have forced many businesses to temporarily close down violates the state Constitution as well as the fifth and 14th amendments.

“Our hope is that it legally slaps some of these politicians in the face,” Geragos said. “What they’re doing is not only unconstitutional but there’s no scientific basis for it.”

Top medical experts across the country have argued that science shows there is a need for people to stay home as much as possible as the coronavirus continues to spread, and legal experts say this could be a tough case to win.

“The state has the power to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents,” said Loyola Law School Professor Jessica Levinson. “I think at this moment, it might be hard to find a judge who’s amenable to these arguments.”

Geragos said that on Monday he plans to file a suit against certain banks for giving out loans to corporations that were intended to bail out small businesses.

Comments (43)
  1. docprudent says:

    And if anyone gets infected while frequenting those businesses that re-opens before the viral threat is over, these businesses will in turn get sued,

    1. Christina Gomez says:

      what about all the businesses already open how are they any different. you cant sue a business if you get sick. theres no evidence to prove exactly where it was transmitted.

    2. You Idiot….stay at home under lockdown and Shut Up!

  2. borderraven says:

    1905 SCOTUS State Police Powers?
    Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court’s decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state.

    Decision
    Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7-2 majority. He rejected Jacobson’s claim that the Fourteenth Amendment gave him the right to refuse vaccination. Harlan deemed that the Massachusetts state punishment of a fine or imprisonment on those who refused vaccines was acceptable, but those individuals could not be forcibly vaccinated.[5] At the end of his decision, he acknowledged that for certain individuals, the requirement of vaccination would be cruel and inhumane and therefore an overreach of government power. That created a medical exemption for adults under the Massachusetts health law, but Harlan denied that Henning Jacobson deserved exemption.[6]

    Precedent
    Harlan ruled that personal liberties could be suspended when “the safety of the general public may demand” for example during a smallpox outbreak.[7] He compared the smallpox outbreak to the American Civil War (in which three out of nine Justices at the term served) by saying that a community has the right to protect itself from both disease and military invasion.[6]

    More broadly, Harlan ruled that Massachusetts was justified in mandating vaccination: “there are manifold restraints to which each person is necessarily subject for the common good”.[6] While Harlan supported such restraints, he also warned that if the state targeted specific individuals or populations to unnecessary restrictions, the court might have to step in to protect them.

    That was a few years after Wong Wai v. Williamson in which a federal circuit court injunction in San Francisco was overturned. It required all Chinese residents of San Francisco to get a dangerous bubonic plague inoculation if they wished to leave the city, which Judge William Morrow ruled was “boldly directed against the Asiatic or Mongolian race as a class”.[6]

    Harlan’s decision supported both police power and limits on the power, and his decision would be invoked to support both in later cases. He stated his nuanced opinion on the limits of government power by saying that “general terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression or absurd consequence”. [6]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

  3. borderraven says:

    Events of “common defence” are the rare, but limited, exception over rights. Stop ignoring COTUS and SCOTUS.

    US Constitution (metaphorically)
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (against the virus), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Article I Section 9 Clause 2
    “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion (by the virus) the public Safety may require it.”

    Article I Section 10 Clause 3
    “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded (by the virus), or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

    Article IV Section 4
    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion (by the virus); and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

  4. ric says:

    “Nothing in the constitution or the statutes should give one person unlimited power to shutter our economy and cause people to lose their jobs,” Speaker assembly Vos said.
    People getting sick or dies or bankrupt can sue CA governor for reckless decision. …

  5. Joe2 says:

    How about a Class-Action suit State-wide against the State re stay at home!

  6. bwashington says:

    I was wondering if there has been any headway of suing a governor? My business has been closed for 4 months without any financial help from the feds or the state. To keep hearing our gov (inslee) talk about “science” over and over doesn’t justify my business being closed but a restaurant can have 20-30 people without having to wear masks, because they are eating of course.

    I am tired of hearing that, oh its just election year as an excuse as well. For people to be okay with that is wrong.

Leave a Reply to g2-ff66d47b14d88446283b6a44caaadd2aB Cancel reply