California

California Judge Says Los Angeles County's Outdoor Dining Ban Isn't 'Grounded in Science, Evidence, or Logic'

A tentative decision from Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant is yet another rebuke of officials trying to reimpose March-style lockdowns on a skeptical public.

|

A California judge has blocked Los Angeles County's ban on outdoor dining in a sharply worded opinion that cites both a lack of evidence for the policy's efficacy in controlling the pandemic and public health officials' failure to consider the costs of closing down on-site dining for some 30,000 restaurants.

The county's ban "is an abuse of the [Health] Department's emergency powers, [and] is not grounded in science, evidence, or logic," wrote Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant in a tentative decision in a lawsuit brought by the California Restaurant Association (CRA) challenging the policy.

Though Chalfant's Tuesday-issued decision will have limited practical effects—it doesn't touch an identical state prohibition on outdoor dining—his ruling is a harsh rebuke of local policy makers' ability to impose new COVID-19 restrictions without the backing of specific "science" and "data."

"I, and a lot of other people who operate restaurants, do feel vindicated," says Kat Turner, who owns the Highly Likely café in Los Angeles. "I think the [county's outdoor dining ban] was made in a hasty attempt to corral the virus without giving too much thought to the after-effects."

Chalfant's ruling comes two weeks after Los Angeles County public health authorities, in response to a sharp rise in new infections, closed outdoor dining for the entire 10-million-person county. That decision—which at the time went beyond the restrictions imposed by the state—provoked a storm of protest.

Individual restaurants have said they wouldn't comply with a ban on outdoor dining, and county sheriffs have said they won't enforce one. One café even labeled its diners "peaceful protestors" in a nod to an exemption in current restrictions for outdoor political expression. Several municipalities within Los Angeles County registered their dissent by vowing to create their own health departments.

Even those business owners who haven't been pushed into civil disobedience are still fuming at the county's sudden decision.

One restaurant operator interviewed by Reason last week said that he'd poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into shifting his business to be all outdoors, only to be shut down again. Others told the Los Angeles Times the ban could put them out of business for good.

Turner says that the county's policy has forced her to lay off two staff members, and cut the hours for her remaining employees. In addition to the financial hit, the outdoor dining ban destroys some of the intangible benefits her restaurant provides the neighborhood, she tells Reason.

"We're restauranters, we love hospitality, we love caring for people, and being able to provide a safe environment for our community to get together. You can't put a price on that," Turner says.

In its lawsuit, the CRA argued that county public health officials hadn't shown any specific evidence that outdoor dining was responsible for Los Angeles' surging caseload. It pointed to Los Angeles County Health Department data finding that only 3 percent of new cases could be traced back to restaurants, and to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance ranking outdoor dining as a lower risk activity when paired with masks and spaced out seating.

The county argued in response that there was plenty of evidence that behaviors associated with outdoor dining—including diners removing their masks to eat and drink and mixing with members of other households—increased the risk of spreading COVID-19, and thus justified the ban.

That more general evidence, Chalfant ruled, wasn't enough to sustain the county's prohibition without it first conducting a more thorough cost-benefit analysis.

"A significant number of restaurants will shutter their doors completely as they will be uncertain as to the future," his decision reads. "By failing to weigh the benefits of an outdoor dining restriction against its costs, the County acted arbitrarily and its decision lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate end."

Most courts have been wary of striking down restrictions on business and individual behavior during the pandemic, preferring to give state and local governments wide discretion in crafting their own responses. Where legal challenges have succeeded, they've generally been on separation of powers grounds. Judges have proven more willing to strike down governors' emergency orders for usurping the powers of state legislatures, for instance.

The decision blocking Los Angeles County's outdoor dining ban is unusual in that it actually examined county officials' justifications for its policy, as well as its potential costs.

"It's an encouraging development that courts are starting to scrutinize the data that's underlying these restrictions that are taking away people's livelihoods," says Luke Wake, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is currently suing Gov. Gavin Newsom and state public health officials over their pandemic restrictions.

Wake says that Tuesday's decision, coming from a county superior court, will have little immediate effect on restaurants' ability to reopen given the existing state prohibition on outdoor dining in Los Angeles County. Should the case be appealed, he says, a higher court ruling affirming it could set a precedent that helps to undo the state's ban.

Legal consequences aside, Chalfant's decision could undermine the political will of the governor and state public health officials to bring back March-style lockdowns in their full restrictive glory.

Already, the state has backed off some of the restrictions it imposed as part of its new stay-at-home order. This week, it allowed outdoor playgrounds to reopen following intense pressure from parents and lawmakers. Grocery stores have also been allowed to operate at 35 percent capacity, up from the 20 percent cap imposed by the state last week.

Turner says Tuesday's ruling could help convince state officials to reverse course on their outdoor dining ban as well.

"The optimist in me thinks if it can happen here then perhaps it can happen at a state-wide level. L.A.'s a huge county and that's a pretty major ruling for us," she says, adding that "I think it also takes the community to support it as well. A lot of community members were also outraged with the outdoor dining ban."

In California, business owners, judges, and the general public suffered through one round of lockdowns in the spring with relatively few complaints. Nine months into the pandemic, they're proving less willing to do it all over again.

NEXT: FTC and State Prosecutors Join Antitrust Dogpile on Facebook

California Coronavirus Regulation Courts

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

35 responses to “California Judge Says Los Angeles County's Outdoor Dining Ban Isn't 'Grounded in Science, Evidence, or Logic'

  1. You can expect more totalitarian edicts like this in the years to come.

    1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page………….USA PART TIME JOB.

    2. Correct, In fact, the greatest cause of illness is poverty. The bureaucrats have no reason to kill small businesses that employ many low paying jobs that hardly support their workers.
      LA is already seen outbreaks of plague prior to COVID and this will not improve the general publics health. Poverty sickens and kills!
      IMHO this is an attempt by large corporations to eliminate small biz competition and result in a oligarchical take over leading to socialism and further decline to the middle class.
      Further illnesses will lead to further tyrannical medical efforts and a population of ultra rich and dirt poor with almost no middle class.
      Resist the COVERT PLANDEMIC, understand health, (Many apparently do not!) and vocally resist!
      Study the history of biology and the sordid history of the medical industry to understand the scam upon the world!!

  2. Just in: Restaurateurs want to kill grandma.

    1. And why not? She never tips worth a damn – – – – – – –

    2. Restaurant killed my Nan.

      Of course, it was the size of the bill, not infection. But still…

  3. In contrast to left wing Reason writers and editors, Judge Chalfant appears to be a libertarian who understands science, economics and constitutional rights.

  4. Easy and easy job on-line from home. begin obtaining paid weekly quite $4k by simply doing this simple home job. I actually have created $4823 last week from this simple job. Its a simple and easy job to try to to and its earnings ar far better than regular workplace job. everyone will currently get additional greenbacks on-line by simply open this link and follow directions to urge started….… Read More.

  5. Joe Biden announced Job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home, on your computer And you can work with your own working hours……………VISIT HERE FOR FULL DETAIL.

    1. Have they invented a way to smell hair over the internet?

  6. When the government can stop people from making a living where can they turn? We know the answer.

    1. In fact, Amazon sells both pitchforks and torches – – – – – – – –

      1. …don’t forget the tar!

        1. …and feathers!

    2. 2ND AMENDMENT!

  7. They deserve to go out of business. If you vote for proggies that say they hate you you have no right to complain

  8. What’s the difference? There’s no science behind masks and social distancing either.

    1. Intentions are what matter. And they intend for you to obey.

  9. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. These are all just polite suggestions.

  10. So all restaurants provide diners with signs saying ‘fuck you, politicians’, and there will be no “indoor dining”, just mostly peaceful protests, with snacks.

  11. My Boy pal makes $seventy five/hour at the internet. She has been without a assignment for six months however remaining month her pay have become $16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours. open this link…….. Here is More information.

  12. The relative of my Classmate procures $530 each hour on the net. He has been out of tough work for 5 months, however a month inside the past his paycheck became $ 18468, really chipping away at the net for multiple hours. examine extra in this website online, go to the residence tab of this web website online for additional diffused factors … Here is More information.

    1. Sorry, procuring is illegal.

  13. Science, evidence and logic are all racist misogynist homophobic transphobic xenophobic social constructs created by evil white cis-het males to maintain their hegemony.

    Damn, I could probably get a job as a college professor.

    1. You do have the vocabulary pre-requisite down pat, seems like.

  14. Science.

    Can a judge use science in making a decision?

    1. I was wondering about that… it’s dangerous because science changes over time, the answers change, the data changes, sometimes the scientist whispering in your ear is wrong, and sometimes the scientist who’s right might be, in rare and unfortunate cases, be a republican or… dare I say it, even a Trump supporter. So it’s best to stay away from The Science Is Settled kind of stuff as a judge.

      1. They do get scientific testimony and evidence and rule based on those. I assume the CRA presented expert witness evidence.

      2. Every advancement in science has been made against the consensus of earlier scientists. Sometimes this is accepted gracefully, sometimes with grudging argument and resistance, and sometimes with brutal suppression.

        Ref. Giordano Bruno who had a bad 1600 because of an inadequately deferential presentation of scientific advances.

  15. Kulaks are always the first against the wall

  16. Neither is the belief that Joe Biden just won a legitimate election, without fraud, but this is also a popular belief of totalitarians.

  17. The Flamingo is a major orange beauty found in almost every country except Antarctica. Also, the name “Flamingo” was derived from the Portuguese or Spanish word “Flamengo”, which symbolizes “flame color”. The flame-like color of the Flamingo body gives a great look when they are in groups.

    The Flamingos fly long distances and can transport themselves at speeds of over 56 kilometers per hour. Besides, they are considered wading birds, but they remain swimming. Also, incredible blood, like feathers, is due to their dietary conditions, which include carotenoid pigments.
    The Flamingo

  18. “It’s an encouraging development that courts are starting to scrutinize the data that’s underlying these restrictions that are taking away people’s livelihoods,” says Luke Wake, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is currently suing Gov. Gavin Newsom and state public health officials over their pandemic restrictions.

    IF ONLY JUDGES WOULD HAVE THE MORAL CHARACTER AND INTESTINAL FORTITUDE TO APPLY THIS SAME LOGIC TO THE DISABILITIES AND RESTRAINTS CRAFTED INTO THE VARIOUS SEX OFFENDER REGISTRIES ACROSS THE NATION. THE EVIDENCE…THE SCIENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE DISABILITIES AND RESTRAINTS TO THE LEAST DEGREE!!! THAT IS A PRODUCT OF PUBLIC HATRED AND ANIMUS.

  19. Its grounded in the power seeking political left and its fascist leanings and Obama’s goal to “fundamentally transform” America.

Comments are closed.