Andy Beshear, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Goodwood Brewing Company, LLC, D/B/A Louisville Taproom, Frankfort Brewpub, and Lexington Brewpub

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky vacated a temporary injunction issued by the Scott Circuit Court against COVID-19-related executive orders, regulations, and directives affecting Goodwood Brewing Company and related businesses. The Court held that the trial court erred by refusing to allow the Governor to present evidence and witnesses concerning irreparable harm, the equities, and the public interest. Because subsequent events rendered the temporary-injunction issues moot, the Court declined to remand for a new injunction hearing and remanded the remaining declaratory-relief claims for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the Governor to present evidence and call witnesses where factual issues concerning immediate and irreparable injury, the equities, the public interest, and the merits were disputed. Although an evidentiary hearing with witness testimony is not required in every temporary-injunction case, evidentiary hearings are the preferred procedure whenever material facts are in dispute.
2. The issues concerning the temporary injunction were moot because the challenged orders, regulations, and directives had been rescinded or were no longer being enforced, leaving no practical relief for the Court to grant.
3. None of the collateral-consequences, voluntary-cessation, capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review, or public-interest exceptions to mootness applied.
4. A court is not empowered to enjoin possible future violations of law or future restrictions that have not yet been issued or enforced.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Scott Circuit Court abused its discretion by granting a temporary injunction without allowing the Governor to call witnesses and present evidence.
2. Whether the temporary-injunction issues were moot because the challenged executive orders, regulations, and directives had been rescinded or were no longer being enforced.
3. Whether any exception to the mootness doctrine preserved the temporary-injunction issues for review.
4. Whether a court may enjoin possible future violations or restrictions not yet issued or enforced.

Disposition

vacated