In Re COVID-Related Restrictions on Religious Services

Supreme Court of the State of Delaware · 2024 · Torts

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsCourt of Chancery jurisdictionpermanent injunctionreasonable apprehension of future wrongdeclaratory judgmentcase or controversystandingredressability

Facts

During the early COVID-19 pandemic, the Delaware Governor issued emergency orders under the Emergency Management Act that at first limited public gatherings and later imposed a ten-person cap and other specific restrictions on Houses of Worship. Those challenged restrictions were lifted by June 2020, and the State of Emergency ended in July 2021. More than eighteen months after the restrictions ended, two religious leaders sued, seeking a declaration that the restrictions were unconstitutional, a permanent injunction against similar future restrictions, and damages. By then, the Governor had also entered a settlement in separate federal litigation agreeing not to impose restrictions that specifically target houses of worship.

Issue

Whether the Court of Chancery had subject matter jurisdiction to hear a request for a permanent injunction against COVID-19 worship restrictions that had already been rescinded, whether the transferred declaratory judgment claims were justiciable, and whether the Governor was immune from damages claims under the Delaware Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Also at issue was whether the Governor's emergency actions were discretionary and whether any federal constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time.

Rule

A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction in the Court of Chancery must show actual success on the merits, irreparable harm if relief is denied, and that the equities favor relief; for forward-looking injunctive relief, past illegality alone is insufficient and the plaintiff must show a reasonable apprehension of a future wrong. Declaratory relief requires a justiciable controversy, including a case or controversy and standing, and standing requires injury in fact, causation, and likely redressability by a favorable decision; when challenged conduct ceased before suit was filed, prospective declaratory relief generally does not redress the injury. Under the Delaware State Tort Claims Act, state officials are immune from damages for discretionary acts taken in good faith and without gross or wanton negligence, and qualified immunity bars § 1983 damages unless the official violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right particularized to the facts at the time.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, the governor issued emergency wildfire rules that temporarily barred all in-person meetings in mountain lodges, including weekly meditation gatherings. The rules ended nine months before Maya Ortiz, who leads one such group, filed only in equity seeking a permanent injunction against any similar future restrictions, arguing that wildfire seasons happen every year.

Should the equity court most likely dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?

Explanation. The majority held that when challenged conduct has ceased before suit is filed, requested injunctive relief is forward-looking. Past illegality alone does not justify a permanent injunction; the plaintiff must show a reasonable apprehension of future wrong. A speculative possibility that similar emergencies may arise is insufficient, so equity jurisdiction fails.