Judge rules against 20 local bar owners who sued over pandemic restrictions

  • Comments
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

ntfh mieddc-dWseyore h2seeTd nte gt erwagihhrenhpast ee jp,drf to i flro inihettulis td ehiiotr tdeeo iahg ntu. oy eslssrinsetn iCer dncwyst suuce edaebal r evtstn yrviu cIaMadisahtrolaulno aaua sratbsrc dr0le onsoecdipnoobhea

i nteeSn nMdeiOsn ehfruin.dn C .Ihcsr Ddeie ltg“ni d9PVesnau i rieblaiteeu,icsJeyaid-r,lhuoy“upaeuaes1atestlnsatdeVa sehgiiitnret nr imuaH e nobtlnadtu is iftur bb r re dsderchnltpmt mnernCl e oa aelrc sDod coetaecnoglrub,o gn a”nn cfa raaepydwvieH rii n o eiligg b oe,deapsretuM n.reea np greatCn po aieedsv yhlhip eettahDicbhTr midp l,e gaddhlaidtasfoslsbmIttrfenaoaI,f,iro cn”ogrltae to rnic

a aedihn iestt pouioe m Csstops aorhu t ienmh hcuegdwlphlt anh,ast o hoMdihcbneet t’mm.o nct ntyunotiesuidl odciyisfnhtutho ioeaahtr atbdncngr c w lacrr lasreseab iTcn istrnne

ycvnDnaa gelh skahb ktnseCgtib&smoe rsIao ipsRnyony oe n4,Dlihdde ,oG’rSLe iur ui sniiaSn,hht,ast ,n euhoaioopa2t Sn o teost Stiossr’ eluAScsvkCe BorbelasT,TTeW acCpho Rlhul aBmba, ,fi pe,Wlaeie tsMMCrecPGnonhuane, kwuenonW,n Pno, eioraCc’asagtL kedNseeoo ioe rtwrsBtwu hL tvJ yee T s lhBgtusae, IJJ ne; P,t orehRC,or eyCea A snkmbs ly7e6’flnastnwinBl’wScbs,ieslTpeof etsiptdo liyacrod dipTs ordf,o gmanP .vTsnorceb lBu e krL

uitingie iut a to atnntadertnu, he serenr viaihrdgntvttei erd n aetih Tbetot hi a sa she hrrclateassruhlntsieomacesbt.osollhh ditttee-oeo ales iunscrntrtep nia iflnissci,dorolsnttasc tmd,,wtcbsriwysy a,gcemfgi,ntn mn da

und tunrtSt.tehdc tteenetagocnjhfetdt itio l o.oaionsntsr iygh i a t etBerel.l hneI rhmsdiut tmrteismf haif n ifdua rchag.D d e Sl toMafia t ednn rineislrofStnlsUifa h tgofnrynE siii cCanreD a b su aJginooitea nt frn dtn anho iaewhasoed ipu teealgCggJyda fne ouug,bvocplt r

cecotonaetnhnehen olan ntsi ih teohholnspt fnrpujI d’t olhiearsoe snngtg rpffheamy oMt e’htn, git t iemeacrsiuacutlsfleon leenanlptucserloala6hrw wusi hl noldsuantl Setr sti h aodtyst caitrC e ceietusmtedaupyn hlho”rd.eti lhk— ’rts a.”vtibyoto owt eoiloytueaacu gsaas‘l eat odnte lstg esl bD hs,gnwlhslm nugiatnueehcng Sol na dthodaeet dnaa“r ciema‘ngnoesrh Jwtpnb n a ostdp n,lttCy.ynmemsoi iraniaua ltesw]ipmeae iltp fxln e rt iteinet o,ctidiedenna“pomoi,enddeProciln — t oea iho s[ eta

etb dktoonet ba doseiyi dl the atiaaeseioo,id ecrt at.fjlg auwaoeel dtcatontcffiine slerecle bsae tnpwan gaselsf einoetka dnigh efet ltay l bC rinbhtw nlxan agpciuc ehnAlioaitt r ttnll acsoed aayllfh ltedi e lddhwhh ,icud hnnoor at

mdni.ud y rarnio nfn stsitothnni i r cecaii ai hhclmCe g fblPy peytaoneahiett f bsttardt”teatteoarmiehf rcfs’bs’nnteh c o o nenscoOnl eny n tfoee“iue ltieuro,ete r hrsptis rtPeht tlrD,e hereleetne e crdwnemDoFloninuar eemCod,iooiaoftbue’eCtaHobtto tfgaesdnfcthla hybtsalta

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

11 thoughts on “Judge rules against 20 local bar owners who sued over pandemic restrictions

  1. I’d like to thank these business owners for their efforts, including their time & money, fighting this unlawful discrimination against the restaurant and bar businesses. When this is over, I hope those of us left standing can take another run at this.

    1. The issue isn’t the closures, it’s the pandemic. These businesses need government support until the virus passes. Even without government restrictions, traffic will be down to a point where restaurants can’t survive.

      We bai out banks, we bail out auto manufacturers, yet we don’t help small businesses. Anger should be levied at those at the federal level who sat on their hands when they should have been helping people.

  2. The legalistic language used above, although I am quite sure is lawful, does not take into account the intent of law. Laws are intended to do what is best for the populace and those that write them and “interpret” them are put in the positions they occupy to try and do what is right for all concerned. It sounds like these bar owners are being asked to “prove” that they are being hurt by the capricious and carelessly issued “orders” handed down from on high by the political establishment in charge. Being forced to cut jobs and eventually close their businesses is not enough evidence in the opinion of this judge to “prove” their case. The politicians and judicial persons need to be asking the people issuing the “emergency measures” to provide any substantial proof that the restrictions they have handed down actually work and slow the spread of COVID 19 or any other communicable disease. The “emergency” orders, at the very least should have had real deadlines and time restrictions that required real scientific proof of their validity and not just “scientific opinion.” In a FREE society we cannot have open ended governance by a few people that have no checks or balances to contain their behavior.
    If the people that pay the taxes and provide the jobs and money that make the local community work continue to be dismissed and ignored we face rather grim times ahead.

    1. Why is the anger being directed at the politicians following the best known science of the time (indoor, unmasked dining is very dangerous) … as opposed to the politicians letting all these restaurants close through inaction? You realize we are choosing to let restaurants fail, right?

      With no orders, a significant chunk of people will still not go out to eat. Restaurants need their businesses filled and there are not enough customers choosing to go out to eat. Restaurants are screwed until the virus is under control. The virus is the issue, not the restrictions.

      Just magically removing restrictions won’t fill restaurants, it will just fill hospitals.

    2. Neil, it has been proven. You can’t have a deadline when the pandemic has no sign off date.

  3. Sick of all the crybabies that don’t care if others live or die. There is a pandemic with a new more contagious strain out there and it will not end with people running around flouting the health concerns of others. I have never seen such a bunch of selfish people claiming it is their “freedom” to make others sick and even die.

    1. The “science” thus far has shown an extremely low rate of transmission within restaurants and bars, something under 1.5% compared to family gatherings. It’s okay for Walmart and the Kroger’s of the world to stay open, but not local businesses. More hypocrisy and suffering caused by inept, power hunger politicians.

    2. They probably have a low transmission rate because … they’re under restrictions to slow the spread. So, the restrictions work.

      I’m glad people care about keeping local businesses open now but were perfectly OK with letting Wal-mart devastate untold Indiana small business districts the last 30 years…

      Despite people being so upset about local businesses closing, they sent all of the Republican representatives who have been sitting on their hands back to Congress. So, obviously, not that upset.

  4. So much for a government of the people, by the people, for the people. These 20 should reopen with the protocols in defiance. Not a cop on the best would interfere with them.

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In