A restaurant in Washington, D.C., that was shut down due to repeated violations of the district’s vaccine and mask mandates has filed a civil lawsuit against the D.C. Department of Health, arguing that the department exceeded their authority by issuing the restrictions in the first place.
The Big Board, a specialty burger shop and pub, is arguing that the department overstepped their bounds by mandating vaccine and mask requirements earlier this year that the restaurant owners say were used to strip the restaurant of its ability to serve patrons. Despite the lack of “evidence of actual viral transmission,” the city government shut Big Board’s doors for several weeks, even after the city’s vaccine mandate expired, the lawsuit argues.
‘NOT CONTROVERSIAL’: SHUTTERED DC RESTAURANT BECOMES RELUCTANT POLITICAL FOOTBALL
The Big Board was dragged into the political fight in January after D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser enacted an emergency order that enforced a vaccine mandate for businesses to follow, requiring employees to verify patron’s vaccination statuses before allowing them to enter.
The pub is the first and only establishment in Washington to lose its liquor license or be shut down for violating Bowser’s mandates. Within a week of the vaccine mandate going into effect, the bar racked up a number of verbal and written warnings, as well as hefty fines, for not requiring patrons to show proof of vaccination before entering. Just over a week later, the D.C. Health Department issued a closure notice citing multiple code violations not related to the COVID-19 mandates.
Bowser later announced the vaccine mandate would be lifted on Feb. 15, just one month after it was instituted across the city. However, the restaurant remained closed until April, until it was considered to be fully compliant with the city’s mandates.
Now, Big Board owner, Eric Flannery, is suing the health department and Laquandra Nesbitt, the former director of D.C. Department of Health, over arguments that the department overstepped their bounds by issuing the closure notice to the restaurant through the emergency order.
The lawsuit questions the city’s use of the Home Rule Act to enact the emergency legislation to enforce the vaccine mandate, which allowed city lawmakers to implement the mandate without any oversight from Congress.
The Home Rule Act allows the city of Washington D.C.’s local government to operate with a sense of autonomy when passing legislation. Under the rule, the city is permitted to pass laws through the city council with the caveat that each law is subject to congressional approval before being approved, putting the district under the control of Congress for each of its local mandates.
However, local lawmakers are permitted to pass emergency legislation that is effective for up to 90 days without congressional approval. Washington lawmakers passed its vaccine mandate for local businesses under this emergency rule, prompting arguments from the Big Board that it violated the U.S. Constitution.
“The Mayor’s inconsistent orders on these issues demonstrate the lack of any realistic public health threat from the alleged violations at the Big Board,” the lawsuit stated. “Upon information and belief, there was no actual evidence or legal authority to support the idea that basic restaurant and food safety requirements necessitated proof of vaccination of a generally transmissible disease.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The district’s vaccine mandate prompted pushback from several Republicans at the time, who vowed they would seek to revoke the D.C. Home Rule should the GOP win control of Congress in November.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages from the city to pay for any and all punitive damages, according to court filings. The suit also seeks to challenge the city’s authority to enact emergency orders, arguing the vaccine mandate “violated the District of Columbia’s Home Rule Act and thwarted Congress’s reserved constitutional power.”
