Issue

North Carolina—Corum claims—not barred by sovereign immunity

Summary

A complaint filed by owners and operators of bars across North Carolina against the state and certain elected officials, alleging that executive orders issued by the governor to address the COVID-19 pandemic violated plaintiffs' state constitutional rights to earn a living (pursuant to the Fruits of Their Own Labor and Law of the Land clauses) by first ordering the closure of bars and then imposing restrictions so severe that they could not reopen (including allowing alcohol sales only in outdoor seating areas and barring alcohol sales between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.), pled facts that were sufficient to survive defendants' motion to dismiss. Sovereign immunity did not bar plaintiffs' direct claims against the state (known as Corum claims) because plaintiffs alleged–in addition to state action and the absence of any other adequate, alternative state remedy (pleading requirements that were undisputed in the case)–a colorable state constitutional claim; namely, that the restrictions imposed effectively forced bars to stay closed for nine months and were not reasonably necessary. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals–affirming the trial court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss–was modified (as to the applicable standards in reviewing the trial court's ruling) and affirmed.

Summary from the North Carolina Reports digest (official subject index). Read the opinion →