{"id":"DUT-CT-011","kind":"duty","level":"court","jurisdiction":"Connecticut (Supreme Court of Connecticut)","state":"CT","metro":"","industry":"","agency":"","eco":"","issuer":"Supreme Court of Connecticut (McDonald, J., for a unanimous court; Robinson, C.J., and McDonald, D\u0027Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.)","authority":"Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-265a (certification of a matter of substantial public interest); Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 28-9, 19a-131a; Conn. Const. art. II","instrument":"Casey v. Lamont, SC 20494 (argued Dec. 11, 2020; officially released Mar. 29, 2021), 338 Conn. 479, 258 A.3d 647 (2021)","title":"Kristine Casey et al. v. Governor Ned Lamont","dateIssued":"2021-03-29","effective":"2021-03-29 (judgment affirmed)","end":"final","startDate":"2021-03-29","endDate":"2021-09-30","quarters":["2020Q2","2020Q3","2020Q4","2021Q1","2021Q2","2021Q3"],"types":["CLOSE","ALC","CAP","OTHER"],"addressees":["specified businesses (bars and restaurants; Casey\u0027s Irish Pub, Black Sheep Enterprise, LLC) and, by its holding, every person and business addressed by orders under § 28-9"],"clause":"Because we conclude that § 28-9 provides authority for the governor to issue the challenged executive orders, we also consider whether § 28-9 is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the governor in violation of the separation of powers provision of the Connecticut constitution.... We conclude that the statute passes constitutional muster.","enforcement":"None imposed by the decision; the decision sustained the orders and their enforcement (the plaintiffs sought to enjoin enforcement and lost)","functions":[],"notes":"Confirmed, as the law of Connecticut, that the COVID-19 pandemic is a \u0027serious disaster\u0027 under § 28-9(a), that the Governor\u0027s executive orders limiting bars and restaurants (EOs 7D, 7N, 7ZZ and their successors) were authorized by § 28-9(b)(1) and (7) and therefore carried the force of law, and that a bar owner who, \u0027in compliance with Executive Order No. 7D,\u0027 closed on March 16, 2020 \u0027after determining that it would not be profitable to operate a takeout business\u0027 had no claim that the orders exceeded the Governor\u0027s authority. Character as recorded: adjudication (orders upheld).","sourceUrl":"https://jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR336/336CR23.pdf","snapshot":"","fileExists":true,"fileBytes":153241,"grade":"primary","character":"adjudication","description":"","collection":"DUT-CT","url":"/library/DUT-CT-011","exhibitUrl":"/exhibit/DUT-CT-011","citation":"Supreme Court of Connecticut (McDonald, J., for a unanimous court; Robinson, C.J., and McDonald, D\u0027Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.), Casey v. Lamont, SC 20494 (argued Dec. 11, 2020; officially released Mar. 29, 2021), 338 Conn. 479, 258 A.3d 647 (2021) (Ex. DUT-CT-011)","stateName":"Connecticut","related":["DUT-CT-013","DUT-CT-003"]}