KYOAG - Beshear Challenges

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000001 of 000056

BOONE CIRCUIT COURT
CASE NO. 20-CI-00678
Electronically filed
FLORENCE SPEEDWAY, INC., et al.
Plaintiffs
v.
NORTHERN KENTUCKY INDEPENDENT

HEALTH DISTRICT, et al.
Defendants
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY EX REL. ATTORNEY GENERAL

DANIEL CAMERON’S MOTION TO INTERVENE
The Commonwealth of Kentucky, by and through Attorney General Daniel
Cameron, respectfully moves to intervene in this action as a matter of right to protect
the constitutional rights of the Commonwealth’s citizenry. See CR 24.01;
Commonwealth ex rel. Beshear v. Commonwealth ex rel. Bevin, 498 S.W.3d 355, 361
(Ky. 2016).
Under CR 24.01, “[u]pon timely application, anyone shall be permitted to
intervene in an action . . . when a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene.”
The court may also grant permissive intervention, upon a timely motion, “(a) when a
statute confers a conditional right to intervene or (b) when an applicant’s claim or
defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.” CR 24.02. The
Commonwealth’s motion satisfies both rules.
1
I. The Attorney General, on behalf of the Commonwealth, may intervene
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000002 of 000056

as of right.
The Commonwealth has a statutory right to intervene sufficient for purposes
of CR 24.01 because, under KRS 15.020, the Attorney General shall “enter his
appearance in all cases, hearings, and proceedings in and before all other courts,
tribunals, or commissions in or out of the state, and attend to all litigation and legal
business in or out of the state required of him by law, or in which the Commonwealth
has an interest[.]” Moreover, the Attorney General shall “exercise all common law
duties and authority pertaining to the office of the Attorney General under the
common law, except when modified by statutory enactment.” Id. “It is unquestioned
that at common law, the Attorney General had the power to institute, conduct and
maintain suits and proceedings for the enforcement of the laws of the state, the
preservation of order, and the protection of public rights.” Beshear, 498 S.W.3d at
362. Among those powers inherent in the Office of Attorney General is “the power to
initiate a suit questioning the constitutionality or legality of an executive action.” Id.
at 363.
On June 22, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking judicial
review of a series of executive orders issued by Governor Beshear. 1 The amended
complaint alleges that Governor Beshear, and his subordinate officers, have violated
multiple provisions of Kentucky’s constitution. Among other allegations, Plaintiffs
1 The initial complaint was filed only several days earlier, on June 16, 2020, naming only
the Northern Kentucky Independent Health District as a defendant. It was not until June
22, 2020, that Plaintiffs amended their complaint to seek relief against the state officials
central to the alleged constitutional violations.
2
allege that Governor Beshear has 1) acted arbitrarily, in violation of Section 2 of the
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000003 of 000056

Kentucky Constitution; 2) violated the separation of powers doctrine contained in
Sections 27 and 28 of the Kentucky Constitution; 3) exceeded his statutory authority
to act pursuant to KRS 39A.100 under these facts; and 4) violated the rule making
procedures provided by KRS Chapter 13A.
On behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Attorney General Cameron,
agrees with that Plaintiffs that the Governor’s executive orders are constitutionally
suspect. Because “the Attorney General’s primary obligation is to the
Commonwealth, the body politic, rather than to its officers, departments,
commissions, or agencies,” the Attorney General Cameron, moves to intervene as of
right on behalf of the Commonwealth and its citizens. Beshear, 498 S.W.3d at 363.
II. The Court should grant the Attorney General, on behalf of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, permissive intervention.
The Commonwealth, by and through Attorney General Cameron, also satisfies
the elements for permissive intervention. The Commonwealth asserts claims against
the same group of state officials for violating the constitutional rights of Kentuckians
by issuing several overbroad and illegal executive orders shutting down the
businesses and livelihood of citizens across the state. These claims arise from the
same unconstitutional actions by the defendants and involve overlapping legal issues.
Because the Commonwealth’s claims involve “a question of law or fact in common,”
permissive intervention is appropriate. CR 24.02.
3
III. The Attorney General’s motion is timely.
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000004 of 000056

Both intervention as of right and permissive intervention require a timely
motion, which this motion is. The Commonwealth is moving to intervene less than
ten days after Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. At the time of this motion,
the Defendants have yet to file an answer, or other responsive pleading, and there
has been no discovery. See Government Employees Ins. Co., v. Winsett, 153 S.W.3d
862 (Ky. App. 2004) (holding that an insurance company’s motion to intervene was
timely when “[n]o judgment, settlement or other event has occurred disposing of the
case at [the] time” the motion was filed). This motion is therefore timely.
Wherefore Attorney General Daniel Cameron, on behalf of the Commonwealth
of Kentucky, respectfully moves this Court to grant its motion to intervene. As
required by Rule 24.03, an intervening complaint accompanies this motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Daniel Cameron
ATTORNEY GENERAL
/s/ Barry L. Dunn

Barry L. Dunn (No. 93787) Office of the Attorney General
Deputy Attorney General 700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118
S. Chad Meredith (No. 92138) Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Solicitor General Phone: (502) 696-5300
Brett R. Nolan (No. 95617) Barry.Dunn@ky.gov
Special Litigation Counsel Chad.Meredith@ky.gov
Aaron J. Silletto (No. 89035) Brett.Nolan@ky.gov
Heather L. Becker (No. 94360) Aaron.Silletto@ky.gov
Marc Manley (No. 96786) Heather.Becker@ky.gov
Assistant Attorneys General Marc.Manley@ky.gov
Counsel for the Commonwealth of

Kentucky ex rel. Attorney General Daniel
Cameron
4
NOTICE
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000005 of 000056

With leave of Court, this motion to intervene shall come on for a hearing before
the Boone Circuit Court on July 1, 2020, at 1 p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel
may be heard.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on June 30, 2020, a copy of the above was filed electronically with
the Court and served through the Court’s electronic filing system and was served by
U.S. Mail, postage prepaid on July 1, 2020, on the following:
Christopher Wiest Thomas Bruns

25 Town Center Blvd, Suite 104 4750 Ashwood Drive, Suite 200
Crestview Hills, KY 41017 Cincinnati, OH 45241
Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for the Plaintiff
Robert A. Winter, Jr. Steven Stack, M.D.

P.O. Box 175883 275 E. Main Street
Fort Mitchell, KY 41017 Frankfort, KY 40621
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Hon. Andrew Beshear, Governor Cabinet for Health and Family Services
Commonwealth of Kentucky 275 E. Main Street
700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 100 Frankfort, KY 40621
Frankfort, KY 40601
Secretary Eric Friedlander Dr. Lynne Saddler, M.D.,

Cabinet for Health and Family Services District Director of Health
275 E. Main Street Northern Kentucky Independent
Frankfort, KY 40621 Health District
8001 Veterans Memorial Drive
Florence, KY 41042
Jeffrey C. Mando
Claire E. Parsons
Olivia Amlung
40 West Pike Street
Covington, KY 41011
Counsel for Northern Kentucky
Independent Health District
/s/ Barry L. Dunn

Counsel for the Commonwealth of Kentucky
5
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000006 of 000056

BOONE CIRCUIT COURT
DIVISION I
Electronically filed
Plaintiffs
and
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ex rel.

ATTORNEY GENERAL DANIEL CAMERON
Intervening Plaintiff
v.

HEALTH DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY EX REL. ATTORNEY GENERAL

DANIEL CAMERON’S INTERVENING COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
On behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Attorney General Daniel
Cameron brings this action for a declaration of rights and injunctive relief against
Andrew Beshear, in his official capacity as the Governor of Kentucky, Eric
Friedlander, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and
1
Family Services, and Steven Stack, M.D., in his official capacity as the Commissioner
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000007 of 000056

for Public Health,1 and states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. There are nearly 4.5 million people in Kentucky. 2 And although
Kentucky has three branches of government, with a General Assembly composed of
38 senators and 100 representatives, right now nearly every aspect of the lives and
livelihoods of those 4.5 million Kentuckian is purportedly governed by one man, and
his political appointees: Governor Andrew Beshear.
2. Through a series of overbroad and overreaching executive orders,
Governor Andrew Beshear is micromanaging Kentucky’s economy and the daily lives
of every Kentucky citizen.3 He has ordered private industry to open and close at his
will. He has ordered churches closed and religious gatherings to disperse. And, with
each passing day, he subjects Kentuckians to increasing uncertainty about how he
will wield the breathtaking authority he claims. Citizens all over the state have no
way to predict what’s next, and no control over fundamental parts of their lives.
3. But it doesn’t have to be this way. And under Kentucky’s Constitution
and Kentucky law, it shouldn’t be. “While the law may take periodic naps during a
1 Unless expressly noted or the context indicates otherwise, reference to “Governor Beshear”
includes Secretary Friedlander and Commissioner Stack.
2 United States Census Bureau, Quick Facts: Kentucky, available at
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/KY (last visited June 30, 2020).
3 As used throughout this Complaint, “executive orders” encompasses any form of directives,
however styled, that purport to govern members of the public.
2
pandemic, we will not let it sleep through one.” Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409, 414–
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000008 of 000056

15 (6th Cir. 2020). The time of unfettered and arbitrary executive power must end.
NATURE OF ACTION
4. This Complaint for a Declaration of Rights and Injunctive Relief is
governed by the Kentucky Declaratory Judgment Act, KRS 418.010, et seq., and
Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 57.
5. KRS 418.040 provides that where “an actual controversy exists, the
plaintiff may ask for a declaration of rights, either alone or with other relief; and the
court may make a binding declaration of rights, whether or not consequential relief
is or could be asked.”
6. An actual and justiciable controversy exists in this action.
7. Given the grave concerns set forth in this Complaint, the
Commonwealth respectfully requests expedited review under KRS 418.050 and CR
57.
PARTIES
8. Daniel Cameron is the duly elected Attorney General of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky. He is the lawyer for the people of Kentucky. KRS
15.020; Commonwealth ex rel. Beshear v. Commonwealth ex rel. Bevin, 498 S.W.3d
355, 362 (Ky. 2016). As the chief law officer of the Commonwealth, Attorney General
Cameron has standing to challenge the “authority for and constitutionality of the
Governor’s actions.” Beshear, 498 S.W.3d at 363. And as the lawyer for the people,
Attorney General Cameron brings this suit on behalf of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky to restore constitutional order and the rule of law in the Commonwealth.
3
9. Governor Andrew Beshear is the Commonwealth’s “Chief Magistrate,”
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000009 of 000056

Ky. Const. § 69, and is charged with “tak[ing] care that the laws be faithfully
executed,” Ky. Const. § 81.
10. The Cabinet for Health and Family Services “is the primary state
agency for operating the public health . . . programs in the Commonwealth,” KRS
194A.010, and must, when it “believes that there is a probability that any infectious
or contagious disease will invade this state . . . take such action and adopt and enforce
such rules and regulations as it deems efficient in preventing the introduction or
spread of such infectious or contagious disease or diseases within this state.” KRS
214.020.
11. Eric Friedlander is the Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family
Services.
12. Steven Stack, M.D. is the Commissioner for the Kentucky Department
of Public Health.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
13. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under Section 112(5) of the
Kentucky Constitution, KRS 23A.010(1), and KRS 418.040.
14. Venue for this action is proper in this Court under KRS 452.405(2) and
KRS 452.480.
4
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000010 of 000056

Since March 6, 2020, Governor Beshear and his appointees have taken
aggressive action to micromanage nearly every aspect of life in Kentucky
by executive order.
15. On March 6, 2020, Governor Beshear issued Executive Order 2020-215. 4
In that order, he purported to rely on KRS Chapter 39A to declare a state of
emergency in the Commonwealth, though only one confirmed case of the novel
coronavirus existed throughout the entire Commonwealth at that time. 5
16. Since his initial order, Governor Beshear and his political appointees
have issued a dizzying array of executive orders, guidance documents, and
recommendations addressing increasingly granular matters of daily life in Kentucky.
17. On March 16, 2020, Secretary Friedlander issued an order limiting all
food and beverage sales to carry-out, delivery, and drive-thru service only. The order
relied on the Governor’s authority in KRS 39A.100(1)(f),(h), and (j), as well as KRS
194A.025, KRS 214.020, KRS 241.090, and KRS 244.120.
18. On March 17, 2020, Secretary Friedlander issued an order requiring the
closure of all “public-facing businesses that encourage congregation.” The order
mandated the closure of entertainment, hospitality and recreational facilities,
4 Executive Order 202-215, available at

http://apps.sos.ky.gov/Executive/Journal/execjournalimages/2020-MISC-2020-0215-266310.pdf (last
visited June 30, 2020). With two exceptions, the executive orders cited herein are in the record as
exhibits to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint or Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
visited June 30, 2020).
5
community and recreation centers, gyms and exercise facilities, hair salons, nail
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000011 of 000056

salons, spas, concert venues, theaters, and sporting event facilities.
19. On March 18, 2020, Governor Beshear issued Executive Order 2020-
243,6 regarding social distancing. The order purported to promote social distancing,
but interpreted that term as “meaning staying home when possible.” The order,
relying on KRS 39A.180, purported to suspend all statutes and regulations requiring
in-person meetings or appearances in conflict with the Governor’s social distancing
guidance. Without citation, the Governor apparently relied on his authority under
KRS 39A.100(1)(j). Broad in scope, the order suspended, without specific reference,
the Open Meetings Act.
20. On March 19, 2020, in an attempt to mitigate the disastrous economic
impact of Secretary Friedlander’s March 16, 2020 order mandating carry-out food and
beverage service, Public Protection Cabinet Secretary Kerry Harvey suspended
Kentucky’s alcohol sales laws with respect to onsite consumption of alcoholic
beverages, converting all on-premises liquor licenses to off-premises liquor licenses.
21. On March 19, 2020, Secretary Friedlander issued an order banning all
mass gatherings. Relying on KRS 194A.025, KRS 214.020, and KRS Chapter 39A
generally, the order prohibited the gathering or convening of individuals for the
following purposes: community, civil, public, leisure, faith-based, or sporting events,
parades, concerts, festivals, conventions, fundraisers, and similar activities. The

6
order exempted the following gatherings: normal operations at airports, bus and train
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000012 of 000056

stations, medical facilities, libraries, shopping malls and centers, other spaces where
persons may be in transit, typical office environments, factories, or retail or grocery
stores where large numbers of people.
246,7 which closed all businesses he deemed “non-life sustaining.” The Governor’s
value judgment on “non-life sustaining” business required the closure of all in-person
retail businesses, excepting grocery stores, pharmacies, banks, hardware stores, and
other businesses that provide staple goods. Without citation, the Governor apparently
relied on his authority under KRS 39A.100(1)(j).
23. On March 23, 2020, Secretary Friedlander issued an order requiring all
non-emergent, non-urgent in-person medical, surgical, dental, and other healthcare
practice or procedures to have ceased on March 18, 2020. As authority, the order cited
KRS 194A.025, KRS 214.020, and KRS Chapter 39A generally. Despite this order,
the Governor and the Cabinet permitted the continued operation of abortion facilities.
257,8 expanding on Executive Order 2020-246 and banning all in-person work. The
order, essentially a shelter-in-place command, introduced the Governor’s “Healthy at

https://governor.ky.gov/attachments/20200322_Executive-Order_2020-246_Retail.pdf (last visited
June 30, 2020).
https://governor.ky.gov/attachments/20200325_Executive-Order_2020-257_Healthy-at-Home.pdf
(last visited June 30, 2020).
7
Home” branding. Without citation, the Governor apparently relied on his authority
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000013 of 000056

under KRS 39A.100(1)(j).
258,9 banning out-of-state travel, except in four limited circumstances. The order
further required a mandatory fourteen day self-quarantine for any Kentuckian who
traveled outside of Kentucky for a non-exempt reason.
26. On April 2, 2020, Governor Beshear issued Executive Order 2020-266, 10
which banned residents of other states from traveling into Kentucky and required
those who did travel into Kentucky to self-quarantine for fourteen days. Through
Executive Order 2020-315,11 and after being struck down by the federal courts,
Governor Beshear eased travel restrictions, allowing travel into and out of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky. Anyone intending to stay was “asked” to self-quarantine
for fourteen days. Without citation, the Governor apparently relied on his authority
under KRS 39A.100(1)(j) for all three travel-ban orders.

8
27. On May 22, 2020, Governor Beshear issued Executive Order 2020-415, 12
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000014 of 000056

rescinding all remaining travel restrictions from prior orders.
28. On April8, 2020, Governor Beshear issued Executive Order 2020-275, 13
limiting the number of shoppers permitted inside those life-sustaining businesses
still allowed to operate. The order limited entrance to one adult member per
household. The order also prohibited door-to-door solicitations. Without citation, the
Governor apparently relied on his authority under KRS 39A.100(1)(j).
29. After shuttering most of Kentucky throughout March and April, on May
8, 2020, Governor Beshear issued Executive Order 2020-323,14 allowing non-life
sustaining businesses to reopen so long as they did so consistent with “requirements
detailed in the Orders of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services implementing
this Executive Order and requirements for specific sectors, businesses, and
entities[.]”
30. On May 11, 2020, the Governor allowed manufacturing, distribution,
and supply chain businesses, vehicle and vessel dealerships, horse racing tracks, pet
care, grooming, and boarding businesses, photography businesses, and office-based
businesses to reopen.

9
31. On May 20, 2020, Governor Beshear issued Executive Order 2020-398, 15
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000015 of 000056

allowing in-person retail business to reopen so long as they did so consistent with
“the minimum requirements for all entities in the Commonwealth of Kentucky under
Executive Order 2020-323 and as implemented by the May 11, 2020 Order of the
Cabinet for Health and Family Services.”
32. On May 22, 2020, Secretary Friedlander issued an order amending his
prior orders of March 16, 2020, and March 17, 2020, to allow in-person dining at
restaurants subject to social distancing, capacity, and cleaning guidelines. 16
33. And as of May 25, 2020, cosmetology businesses, hair salons and
barbershops, massage therapy businesses, nail salons, tanning salons, and tattoo
parlors could reopen subject to social distancing, capacity, and cleaning guidelines.
As authority, the order cited KRS 194A.025, KRS 214.020, and Executive Orders
2020-215 and 2020-323.
34. On June 3, 2020, Secretary Friedlander issued an order, amending his
prior orders of May 22, 2020, March 16, 2020, and March 17, 2020, to allow auctions,
auto/dirt track racing, aquatic centers, bowling alleys, fishing tournaments, fitness
centers, and movie theaters to reopen subject to social distancing, capacity, and
cleaning guidelines. As authority, his order cited KRS 194A.025, KRS 214.020, and
Executive Orders 2020-215 and 2020-323.

visited June 30, 2020), and attached as Exhibit 1.
16 Friedlander Order, dated May 22, 2020, attached as Exhibit 2.
10
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000016 of 000056

prior orders of May 22, 2020, March 16, 2020, and March 17, 2020, to allow
educational and cultural activities, horse shows, and in-home childcare to reopen
subject to social distancing, capacity, and cleaning guidelines. As authority, his order
cited KRS 194A.025, KRS 214.020, and Executive Orders 2020-215 and 2020-323.
prior orders of May 22, 2020, March 16, 2020, and March 17, 2020, to allow childcare,
youth sports and athletic activities to reopen subject to social distancing, capacity,
and cleaning guidelines. As authority, the Secretary cited KRS 194A.025, KRS
214.020, and Executive Orders 2020-215 and 2020-323.
37. The courts seem to be the only way for Kentuckians to have their voices
heard. Despite making national news for repeatedly violating the rights of the
citizens, Governor Beshear has consistently refused to curtail his overreach until a
court orders him to do so.
38. And on that front, Governor Beshear’s micromanaging of the lives and
rights of Kentuckians has not been well-received by the courts. Time after time,
Kentuckians have had to resort to costly litigation to stop the Governor’s oppressive
actions. And time after time, those Kentuckians have prevailed. Virtually every court
considering a constitutional challenge to one of Governor Beshear’s orders during this
state of emergency has declared it unconstitutional and enjoined him from further
enforcement.
11
39. Governor Beshear first made national waves when he ordered the
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000017 of 000056

Kentucky State Police to Maryville Baptist Church to record the license plate of any
person attending church on Easter Weekend. Maryville filed suit claiming that the
Governor’s ban on mass gatherings unconstitutionally targeted religious
organizations for disfavored treatment.
40. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the church. Twice.
41. The court first enjoined the Governor from enforcing his ban on mass
gatherings against Maryville’s drive-in services. Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v.
Beshear, 957 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2020). In doing so, the court’s unanimous, three-judge
panel explained that the Governor’s ban on mass gatherings had “several potential
hallmarks of discrimination.” Id. at 614. Even though the Court did not “doubt the
Governor’s sincerity in trying to do his level best to lessen the spread of the virus or
his authority to protect the Commonwealth’s citizens,” id., the Constitution prevailed
and the court enjoined his order.
42. The Governor brazenly responded by declaring victory, claiming that the
Sixth Circuit did not completely enjoin his ban on religious gatherings.
43. Unimpressed, the Sixth Circuit enjoined him again one week later. See
Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2020). This time, the court unanimously
prohibited the Governor from enforcing his order against all of Maryville’s religious
services, both drive-in and in-person.
44. At the same time, a federal court in Frankfort entered a statewide
injunction against the Governor on the same issue. See Tabernacle Baptist Church,
12
Inc. of Nicholasville, Ky. v. Beshear, No. 3:20-CV-33-GFVT, 2020 WL 2305307 (E.D.
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000018 of 000056

Ky. May 8, 2020). The court found that Governor Beshear likely violated the Free
Exercise Clause with his mass-gathering ban. Id. at *5.
45. Governor Beshear has also been sued and enjoined over his travel ban.
See Roberts v. Neace, No. 2:20CV054 (WOB-CJS), 2020 WL 2115358 (E.D. Ky. May 4,
2020); see also W.O. v. Beshear, No. 3:20-CV-00023-GFVT (E.D. Ky.). Several
Kentuckians sued the Governor over the ban almost immediately, raising serious
constitutional concerns over the stunning breadth of the restrictions. For over a
month, the Governor refused to modify even one word of his order to address the
legitimate concerns of the citizens of the Commonwealth. Then, a federal court in
Northern Kentucky declared it unconstitutional and the Governor responded with a
complete retreat, rescinding all of the mandatory provisions in his unconstitutional
order.
46. Governor Beshear’s response to the travel litigation is emblematic of his
reign over Kentucky during the pandemic. He made no effort to revise his order or
address the legitimate concerns of the citizens until a federal court ordered him to do
so.
47. The same problem arose when the Governor banned political protests at
the state Capitol. In response to several groups gathering to protest the way in which
the Governor has exercised arbitrary authority over the Commonwealth and its
citizens, Governor Beshear barricaded the traditionally open grounds of the Capitol
to prevent further political gatherings. Several protesters filed suit, and a federal
13
court in Frankfort again enjoined the Governor from enforcing his unconstitutional
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000019 of 000056

ban on mass gatherings against political protesters. Ramsek v. Beshear, No. 3:20-CV-
00036-GFVT, 2020 WL 3446249 (E.D. Ky. June 24, 2020).
48. Just like his response to the travel-ban litigation, the Governor refused
to make any concessions or exceptions to the legitimate concerns of the protesters. He
even went so far as to argue that the suit should be dismissed because he did not
intend to enforce the ban against these particular protesters while refusing to modify
one word of his ban on mass gatherings. The Sixth Circuit rejected his attempt to
avoid litigation without addressing the issues, and the district court in Frankfort
followed suit with an injunction in which the Governor was ordered to modify his
unconstitutional order. See Ramsek, 2020 WL 3446249, at *11–12.
49. This has been the persistent pattern for Governor Beshear: Exercising
broad, unfettered, and unlawful authority over the daily lives of Kentuckians and
refusing to listen to or compromise over serious issues raised by citizens. Only when
a court orders him to do so does the Governor make any effort at protecting the
constitutional rights of Kentuckians.
50. Against this backdrop and amid the cumbersome, overlapping,
inconsistent, unreasonable, and arbitrary restrictions imposed by the Governor, the
Attorney General, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, brings these claims
to challenge the Governor’s continued exercise of arbitrary power unconstrained by
any law.
14
COUNT I – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000020 of 000056

The Governor has not properly invoked his authority under KRS 39A.100.
51. The Commonwealth incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs.
52. To guard against all major hazards, KRS Chapter 39A through 39F are
intended to “confer upon the Governor, the county judges/executive of the counties,
the mayors of the cities and urban-county governments of the Commonwealth, and
the chief executive of other local governments” certain emergency authority. KRS
39A.010(2).
53. The provisions in KRS Chapters 39A through 39F envision a
streamlined, integrated emergency management system of cooperation of state and
local government that ensures continuity and effectiveness of our public institutions
in times of emergency, disaster, or catastrophe. See generally KRS 39A.010, KRS
39A.020, and KRS 39A.030.
54. KRS 39A.100(1) provides that “[i]n the event of the occurrence or
threatened or impending occurrence of any of the situations or events contemplated
by KRS 39A.010, 39A.020, or 39A.030, the Governor may declare, in writing, that a
state of emergency exists.” And during a state of emergency, the Governor has and
may exercise those powers specifically enumerated and granted to him in KRS
39A.100(1) (in a manner that does not otherwise violate law).
55. According to KRS 39A.020(12), however, “emergency” means “any
incident or situation which poses a major threat to public safety so as to cause, or
threaten to cause, loss of life, serious injury, significant damage to property, or major
15
harm to public health or the environment and which a local emergency response
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000021 of 000056

agency determines is beyond its capabilities” (emphasis added).
56. Thus, before the Governor may exercise those powers listed in KRS
39A.100(1) in any jurisdiction within the Commonwealth, two things must occur:
first, a situation that poses a major threat to public safety so as to cause, or threaten
to cause, loss of life; and, second, the local emergency response agency must
determine that the situation “is beyond its capabilities.” KRS 39A.100(1).
57. Governor Beshear is familiar with this statutory prerequisite to the use
of these expanded, emergency powers. In an opinion issued by his office just last year,
then-Attorney General Andrew Beshear considered whether a county judge/executive
could invoke the emergency powers of KRS Chapters 39A–39F to fill the position of
County Road Supervisor. Then-Attorney General Beshear consulted the definition of
“emergency” in KRS 39A.020(12) and determined that even if the vacancy posed a
major threat to public safety, it was “not a circumstance that a local emergency
response agency would determine to be beyond its capabilities.” Ky. OAG No. 19-021,
2019 WL 6445355 (Nov. 18, 2019).
58. Like the judge/executive in OAG No. 19-021, the Governor has not
shown that any local emergency response agency in the Commonwealth—much less,
every local agency—has determined that the situation caused by the novel
coronavirus “is beyond its capabilities.” KRS 39A.100(1). Thus, the Governor has no
authority to invoke the powers set forth in KRS 39A.100(1) in an effort to
commandeer the entire Commonwealth.
16
59. Therefore, the Commonwealth respectfully requests a declaration that
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000022 of 000056

the Governor’s executive orders purportedly issued under his KRS Chapter 39A
authority are invalid and without legal effect in all those counties where the local
emergency response agency has not determined that the situation “is beyond its
capabilities.” KRS 39A.100(1).17
60. The Commonwealth seeks injunctive relief under CR 65, including a
restraining order, a temporary injunction, and a permanent injunction, prohibiting
the Defendants from enforcing any of the Governor’s executive orders issued under
KRS Chapter 39A.
COUNT II – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:

By refusing to reasonably tailor his orders to the location and needs of the
emergency, the Governor has violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Kentucky
Constitution and KRS Chapter 39A.
62. Section 1 of the Kentucky Constitution provides:
All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent
and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:
First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties.
Second: The right of worshipping Almighty God according to the

dictates of their consciences.
Third: The right of seeking and pursuing their safety and

happiness.
Fourth: The right of freely communicating their thoughts and

opinions.
17 Kentucky’s counties and cities have not been affected by the pandemic in identical ways.
Permitting the local emergency response agency to determine when to request assistance from the
Commonwealth helps to tailor the Commonwealth’s response and marshal the Commonwealth’s
resources to where they are needed.
17
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000023 of 000056
Fifth: The right of acquiring and protecting property.
Sixth: The right of assembling together in a peaceable manner for

their common good, and of applying to those invested with the
power of government for redress of grievances or other proper
purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.
Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of

the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact
laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.
63. Section 2 of the Kentucky Constitution provides: “Absolute and
arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a
republic, not even in the largest majority.”
64. KRS Chapter 39A premises the Governor’s emergency powers on “the
occurrence or threatened or impending occurrence of any of the situations
contemplated by KRS 39A.010, 39A.020, or 39A.030,” such as a disaster, emergency,
or catastrophe.
65. Despite statutory language that requires specificity and precision, the
Governor has declared a state of emergency throughout the Commonwealth and has
not distinguished between locations due to severity of the pandemic.
66. Kentucky has experienced extreme differences in infection rate from
county-to-county and region-to-region. Not until June 29, 2020, nearly four months
after the state of emergency was declared, did Robertson County experience its first
confirmed case of COVID-19.18 As the graphic below illustrates, the Governor’s
18 Beshear reports 117 new COVID-19 Cases, Two Deaths; Robertson County Reports First Case,
Northern Ky. Tribune (June 30, 2020), available at: https://www.nkytribune.com/2020/06/117-new-
18
COVID-19 website19 shows that as of June 30, 2020, 27 counties have ten or fewer
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000024 of 000056

confirmed cases, while 45 counties have 50 or fewer confirmed cases:
67. As of June 30, 2020, 15,642 of the Commonwealth’s nearly 4.5 million
residents (or approximately 0.3%) of the population has been diagnosed with COVID-
19, though unfortunately, 565 deaths have been linked to COVID-19.
68. Sections 1 and 2 of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS Chapter 39A
require the Governor to tailor the declaration of a state of emergency and the response
thereto in a way that reasonably addresses the actual emergency.
covid-cases-two-deaths-robertson-county-reports-case-now-all-120-counties-have-cases/ (last visited

June 30, 2020).
19 See https://govstatus.egov.com/kycovid19 (last visited June 30, 2020).
19
69. By declaring a statewide emergency and refusing to tailor his orders to
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000025 of 000056

specific hotspots or concerns, Governor Beshear has violated Sections 1 and 2 of the
Kentucky Constitution and KRS Chapter 39A.
70. Therefore, the Commonwealth respectfully requests a declaration that
the Governor’s executive orders under KRS Chapter 39A must specifically identify
the grounds upon which an emergency is declared and the location of the emergency
and must be reasonably tailored in such a way that the emergency response addresses
only the emergency at the location where it exists.
KRS Chapter 39A that are not so tailored.
COUNT III – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:

The Governor has used KRS Chapter 39A to unlawfully assume lawmaking
powers in violation of §§ 15, 27, and 28 of the Kentucky Constitution.
73. In Legislative Research Commission v. Brown, 664 S.W.2d 907, 912 (Ky.
1984), the Kentucky Supreme Court observed that “[o]ur present constitution
contains explicit provisions which, on the one hand, mandate separation among the
three branches of government, and on the other hand, specifically prohibit incursion
of one branch of government into the powers and functions of the others. Thus, our
constitution has a double-barreled, positive-negative approach.”
20
74. That “double-barreled” separation of powers is reflected in Sections 27
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000026 of 000056

and 28 of the Kentucky Constitution.
75. Section 27 provides that “[t]he powers of the government of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky shall be divided into three distinct departments, and
each of them be confined to a separate body of magistracy, to wit: Those which are
legislative, to one; those which are executive, to another; and those which are judicial,
to another.”
76. Moreover, “[t]he legislative, executive and judicial branches of our state
government are to operate within their respective spheres and ‘no person or collection
of persons, being of one of those departments, shall exercise any power properly
belonging to either of the others’ except as expressly directed or permitted by the
Constitution.” Beshear v. Haydon Bridge Co., 416 S.W.3d 280, 295 (Ky. 2013) (citing
Ky. Const. § 28).
77. Thus, Kentucky courts have recognized that “perhaps no state forming
part of the . . . United States has a constitution whose language more emphatically
separates and perpetuates what might be termed the American tripod form of
government than does . . . [the Kentucky] Constitution.” Beshear v. Haydon Bridge
Co., 416 S.W.3d at 295 (citing Sibert v. Garrett, 246 S.W. 455, 457 (Ky. 1922)).
78. Section 26 of the Kentucky Constitution provides that the Bill of Rights
“shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this
Constitution, shall be void.”
21
79. The nondelegation doctrine is an outgrowth of this strong separation of
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000027 of 000056

powers. According to the doctrine, the General Assembly cannot delegate its
legislative power to the executive branch except in rare cases where certain
limitations and safeguards are implemented.
80. The “nondelegation doctrine” in Kentucky’s constitutional law is “more
restrictive of powers granted than the federal Constitution . . . . Indeed, in the area
of non-delegation, Kentucky may be unsurpassed by any state in the Union.” Board
of Trustees of the Judicial Form Ret. Sys. v. Attorney General, 132 S.W.3d 770, 782
(Ky. 2004).
81. “Kentucky is more ‘restrictive of powers granted’ than the federal
Constitution because the federal Constitution does not have a ‘provision expressly
forbidding the Congress to delegate its legislative powers,’ as do Sections 27, 28, 29,
and 60 of the Kentucky Constitution.” Id.
82. And Kentucky law mandates that “the legislature must lay down
policies and establish standards” whenever it delegates legislative power to the
executive branch.
83. KRS Chapter 39A, as interpreted and implemented by Governor
Beshear since March 6, 2019, and related to the novel coronavirus, contains none of
the constitutionally required “policies” and “standards.”
84. For example, KRS 39A.090 provides that the Governor may “make,
amend, and rescind any executive orders as deemed necessary to carry out the
provisions of KRS Chapters 39A to 39F,” but contains neither any “policy” nor any
22
“standard” to constrain the Governor’s alleged lawmaking authority and power to
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000028 of 000056

suspend and rewrite state law as he dictates.
85. KRS 39A.100(1) permits the Governor to declare that a state of
emergency exists so that he may exercise broad powers, including the authority “to
perform and exercise other functions, powers, and duties deemed necessary to
promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.” KRS
39A.100(1)(j). And KRS 39A.180(2) provides that “[a]ll existing laws, ordinances, and
administrative regulations inconsistent with the provisions of KRS Chapters 39A to
39F, or of any order or administrative regulation issued under the authority of KRS
Chapters 39A to 39F, shall be suspended during the period of time and to the extent
that the conflict exists.” The provisions purport to give the Governor the power to
repeal and revise state statutes.
86. Here again, KRS Chapter 39A imposes neither any “policies” nor any
“standards ” to constrain the Governor’s discretion in what laws and regulations he
may suspend and what orders he may issue during a declared state of emergency.
87. Thus, to the extent that KRS Chapter 39A authorizes the unconditional
exercise of legislative authority and the suspension of laws enacted by the General
Assembly, KRS Chapter 39A violates Sections 15, 27, and 28 of the Kentucky
Constitution and is an unlawful delegation of lawmaking authority.
88. The Commonwealth therefore seeks a declaration that KRS 39A.100(1)
and KRS 39A.180(2) are unconstitutional delegations of lawmaking authority and
violate Sections 15, 27, and 28 of the Kentucky Constitution.
23
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000029 of 000056

KRS Chapter 39A that purport to engage in lawmaking functions or suspend
statutes.
COUNT IV – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:

The Governor’s Executive Orders violate §§ 1 and 2 of the Kentucky
Constitution and KRS Chapter 39A by implementing impermissible
restrictions on Kentuckians and businesses.
91. Section 1 of the Kentucky Constitution provides that Kentuckians are
“free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights,” such as the “right
of enjoying and defending their lives and freedom,” the “right of seeking and pursuing
their safety and happiness,” and the “right of acquiring and protecting property,” and
the “right of assembling together in a peaceable manner.”
92. Section 2 of the Kentucky Constitution provides that “[a]bsolute and
arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a
republic, not even in the largest majority.” “Whatever is contrary to democratic
ideals, customs and maxims is arbitrary. Likewise, whatever is essentially unjust and
unequal or exceeds the reasonable and legitimate interests of the people is arbitrary.”
Kentucky Milk Marketing and Antimonopoly Comm’n v. Kroger Co., 691 S.W.2d 893,
899 (Ky. 1985).
93. Among other instances, arbitrary executive power is exercised when the
challenged action exceeds statutory authority, violates procedural due process, or
24
where the action is not supported by substantial evidence. See American Beauty
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000030 of 000056

Homes Corp. v. Louisville and Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Comm., 379
S.W.2d 450, 456 (Ky. 1964).
94. KRS 39A.100 requires the Governor to declare, in writing, that a state
of emergency exists prior to exercising the enumerated emergency powers set forth
in KRS 39A.100.
95. On March 6, 2020, Governor Beshear issued Executive Order 2020-215
declaring a State of Emergency and invoking his KRS 39A.100 powers, but he failed
to specifically define the emergency authorizing him to invoke any authority under
KRS Chapter 39A. At one point, the Governor suggested that emergency action was
necessary to “flatten the curve” to ensure the availability of healthcare resources. But
what is it now? The Governor won’t say. Yet he continues to wield broad and
unrestrained authority and issue orders governing the lives of Kentuckians.
96. Despite the lack of any clearly defined emergency, the Governor has
issued a series of restrictive executive orders that shuttered the Commonwealth’s
economy and dictated the manner in which Kentucky’s citizens could perform
everyday activities—like shopping, interacting with friends and loved ones, and other
basic activities.
97. The Governor’s executive orders are arbitrary and invalid because they
exceed his statutory authority, contain no procedural due process protections, and are
not supported by substantial evidence as to their scope.
25
98. Moreover, the “[u]nequal enforcement of the law, if it rises to the level
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000031 of 000056

of conscious violation of the principle of uniformity, is prohibited by [Section 2 of the
Kentucky Constitution].” Kroger Co., 691 S.W.2d at 899. The Governor’s executive
orders are arbitrary because they are enforced unequally, if at all.
99. In fact, although the Governor claims the authority to enforce his orders,
he has also repeatedly suggested that he does not plan to enforce those orders against
those parties challenging his orders before the courts. See, e.g., W.O. v. Beshear, No.
3:20-cv-23-GFVT, DE 30 at 12 (E.D. Ky. April 30, 2020).
100. Because the Governor claims to retain discretion to enforce his executive
orders and has provided no public notice or provisions explaining how and when his
order may be enforced, the Governor is exercising arbitrary power over the lives of
the Commonwealth’s citizens in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Kentucky
Constitution.
101. Moreover, because the Governor has not defined the “emergency” that is
the basis for his many orders, it is impossible to determine whether there is
substantial evidence to support the Governor’s determination that an “emergency”
exists or, for that matter, whether there is substantial evidence for any of the orders
Governor Beshear has purportedly issued under his KRS Chapter 39A authority.
102. Likewise, there is no mechanism, other than the Courts, by which to
challenge the Governor’s actions, such as through an administrative hearing process
or other hearing that would comply with the Kentucky Constitution’s due process
requirements.
26
103. As yet another example, KRS 39A.100(1)(h) permits the Governor to
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000032 of 000056

“prohibit or limit the sale or consumption of goods, excluding firearms and
ammunition.” The statute says nothing about prohibiting or limiting the sale and
provision of services. Yet, the Governor has shuttered barber shops, nail salons,
child-care centers, and a host of other service-oriented businesses without authority.
104. The right to carry on one’s trade or business is guaranteed by Section
1’s protection of the “right of acquiring and protecting property,” which Kentucky’s
high court has classified as economic liberty. See, e.g., Gen. Elec. Co. v. Am. Buyers
Co-op, Inc., 316 S.W.2d 354, 360-61 (Ky. 1958); City of Jackson v. Murray-Reed-Slone
& Co., 178 S.W.2d 847, 848 (Ky. 1944).
105. The Commonwealth therefore seeks a declaration under KRS Chapter
418 that the Governor’s executive orders and the Defendants’ actions violate Sections
1 and 2 of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS Chapter 39A, and that all orders
issued by the Governor in derogation thereof are arbitrary, invalid, and
unenforceable.
the Defendants, or any person under their authority or acting in concert with them,
from attempting to enforce any of the Governor’s unlawful executive orders issued
under KRS Chapter 39A.
27
COUNT V – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000033 of 000056

The Governor’s Orders violate KRS Chapter 13A and
§ 2 of the Kentucky Constitution.
108. Any person violating any provision of KRS Chapter 39A or an order
promulgated pursuant to that “chapter is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.” KRS
39A.990.
109. A Class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to twelve months in jail, a
fine up to $500, or both. KRS 532.090(1); KRS 534.040(1), (2)(a).
110. Nonetheless, none of the Governor’s executive orders are easily
accessible or prominently advertised in a defined place known to the public. And none
of the executive orders—despite their far-reaching implications and the grave
consequences for contravening them—went through the KRS Chapter 13A
procedures for rulemaking.
111. In KRS Chapter 13A, Kentucky’s General Assembly expressly required
that any statement of law by any state officer that generally applies to the
Commonwealth’s citizens must be adopted as an administrative regulation. KRS
13A.010(1), (2); KRS 13A.100.
112. According to KRS 13A.100, “any administrative body that is empowered
to promulgate administrative regulations shall, by administrative regulation,
prescribe, consistent with applicable statutes . . . [e]ach statement of general
applicability, policy, procedure, memorandum, or other form of action that
28
implements; interprets; prescribes law or policy . . . or affects private rights or
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000034 of 000056

procedures available to the public.”
113. The definition of “administrative body” is broad enough to encompass
every state officer—including the Commonwealth’s Chief Magistrate, the Governor.
KRS 13A.010(1).
114. The Governor’s executive orders—which broadly apply to nearly every
citizen of the Commonwealth and every activity of its citizens—are “statements of
general applicability, policy, procedures . . . or other form of action that implements
[or] prescribes law or policy [and] affects private rights or procedures available to the
public.” KRS 13A.100. They must, therefore, be promulgated under the provisions of
KRS Chapter 13A.
115. But neither the Governor nor his designees have promulgated their
orders under KRS Chapter 13A. In fact, in developing and implementing the
Executive Orders, the Governor did not use any of the forms of administrative
regulations authorized by KRS 13A.170, including the ordinary administrative
regulations, as defined in KRS 13A.180, or the emergency administrative regulations,
as set forth in KRS 13A.190.
116. Whereas KRS 39A.180 provides that orders under KRS Chapters 39A to
39F “have the full force of law, when, if issued by the Governor, the director, or any
state agency, a copy is filed with the Legislative Research Commission,” the public is
provided no notice that such orders have been filed with the Commission and there
is no publicly available resource to locate and view the orders filed with the
29
Commission. On the other hand, promulgation under KRS Chapter 13A requires
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000035 of 000056

publication of all administrative regulations in the “Administrative Register of
Kentucky.” KRS 13A.050. The Register is available to the public, and proposed
regulations—whether amendments or emergency regulations are published
electronically to the Commission’s website.20
117. Kentuckians are expected, on a daily basis, to comply with ever-
changing rules that are issued by a single person, and the “official” source for such
rules, the Legislative Research Commission, does not publish the rules.
418 that the Governor’s executive orders must be promulgated through the
rulemaking procedures set forth in KRS Chapter 13A and that, because none of the
Governor’s orders have been promulgated consistent with that Chapter, that they are
null, void, and unenforceable. KRS 13A.120; KRS 13A.130; Ky. Const. § 2.
the Defendants, or any person under their authority or acting in concert with them,
from attempting to enforce any of the Governor’s executive orders issued under KRS
Chapter 39A.
20 See Kentucky Administrative Regulations, available at

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/kar/titles.htm (last visited June 30, 2020).
30
COUNT VI – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000036 of 000056

The indefinite nature of the state of emergency violates
§ 2 of the Kentucky Constitution.
121. KRS Chapter 39A does not provide an express time limit on a declared
state of emergency.
122. KRS 39A.100(1) contemplates that emergency powers may only be
exercised “during the period in which the state of emergency exists.”
123. Providing emergency powers to one person for an indefinite period of
time, while not providing a check on such powers, is arbitrary in violation of § 2 of
the Kentucky Constitution.
418 that KRS Chapter 39A is unconstitutional to the extent it does not have a
temporal limitation and does not have a check on the Governor’s power.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel. Attorney General
Daniel Cameron requests the following relief:
A. Expedited review under KRS 418.050 and CR 57;
B. A declaration that the Governor’s executive orders violate KRS
39A.100(1) because he is unable to demonstrate that a local emergency response
agency has determined that the situation is beyond its capabilities;
C. A declaration that the Governor’s executive orders violate Sections 1, 2,
15, 26, 27, and 28, of the Kentucky Constitution;
31
D. A declaration that KRS 39A.100(1) and KRS 39A.180(2) are
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000037 of 000056

unconstitutional to the extent they impermissibly delegate lawmaking authority to
the Governor;
E. A declaration that the Governor’s orders issued pursuant to KRS
Chapter 39A must be promulgated under the provisions of KRS Chapter 13A;
F. A temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent
injunction against Governor Beshear, Secretary Friedlander, and Commissioner
Stack, and any of their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other
persons who are in active concert or participation with them, as further explained in
the motion(s) for injunctive relief that will be filed with the Court;
G. Any other relief to which the Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel.
Attorney General Cameron is entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
Daniel Cameron
ATTORNEY GENERAL
/s/ Barry L. Dunn____________________

Barry L. Dunn (No. 93787) Office of the Attorney General
Deputy Attorney General 700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118
S. Chad Meredith (No. 92138) Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Solicitor General Phone: (502) 696-5300
Brett R. Nolan (No. 95617) Barry.Dunn@ky.gov
Special Litigation Counsel Chad.Meredith@ky.gov
Aaron J. Silletto (No. 89035) Brett.Nolan@ky.gov
Heather L. Becker (No. 94360) Aaron.Silletto@ky.gov
Marc Manley (No. 96786) Heather.Becker@ky.gov
Assistant Attorneys General Marc.Manley@ky.gov

Kentucky ex rel. Attorney General Daniel
Cameron
32
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000038 of 000056
Exhibit 1
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000039 of 000056

274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000040 of 000056
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000041 of 000056
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000042 of 000056
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000043 of 000056
Exhibit 2
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000044 of 000056

274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000045 of 000056
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000046 of 000056
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000047 of 000056
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000048 of 000056
VERSION 1.2 – Effective June 8, 2020
Requirements for Restaurants
In addition to the Healthy at Work Minimum Requirements, restaurants1
must meet the requirements below in order to reopen and remain open:
Social Distancing Requirements
• Restaurants that have provided food and beverage service via curbside, takeout,
and delivery services should continue to do so, to the greatest extent practicable,
in order to minimize the number of persons in the restaurant and contacts between
them.
• Restaurants should provide services and conduct business via phone or Internet to
the greatest extent practicable. Any restaurant employees who are currently able
to perform their job duties via telework (e.g., accounting staff) should continue to
telework.
• Restaurants should limit party size to ten (10) people or fewer. Persons not living
within the same household should not be permitted to sit at the same table.
• Restaurants must limit the number of customers present in any given restaurant to
33% of the maximum permitted occupancy of seating capacity, assuming all
individuals in the restaurant are able to maintain six (6) feet of space between each
other with that level of occupancy. This means no person can be within six (6) feet
of a person seated at another table or booth. If the restaurant is not able to
maintain six (6) feet of space between tables at 33% of capacity, the restaurant
must limit the number of individuals in the restaurant to the greatest number that
permits proper social distancing. Restaurants should consider installation of
portable or permanent non-porous physical barriers (e.g., plexiglass shields)
between tables.
• Restaurants should maximize use of outdoor seating. Restaurants must be able to

arrange seating so as to maintain six (6) feet of space between seated customers.
This means no person can be within six (6) feet of a person seated at another table.
• Restaurants should ensure social distancing by limiting customer movement

through the restaurant to the greatest extent practicable. Restaurants should inform
customers that they may travel to entries, exits, and the restroom, unless
circumstances (e.g. healthy and safety) require otherwise. Restaurants should to
the greatest extent practicable, modify the office’s traffic flow to minimize
contacts.
1
For purposes of these requirements, a “restaurant” is an entity that stores, prepares, serves, vends food
directly to the consumer or otherwise provides food for human consumption, and must hold a food service
permit in good standing and has table seating.
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000049 of 000056
• If a restaurant has more customers wishing to enter their business than is possible
under the current social distancing requirements of six (6) feet between all
individuals, the restaurant should establish a system for limiting entry and tracking
occupancy numbers. Once a restaurant has reached its capacity, it should permit a
new customer inside only after a previous customer has left the premises on a one-
to-one basis. Restaurants experiencing lines or waits outside their doors should
establish a safe means for customers to await entry, such as asking customers to
remain in their car and notifying them via phone when they are able to enter the
restaurant or demarking spots six (6) feet apart where customers can safely stand
without congregating.
• Restaurants should close children’s play areas.
• Restaurants should update floor plans for common dining areas, redesigning
seating arrangement to maximize the ability to social distance to the greatest
extent practicable.
• Restaurants should consider a reservations-only business model or call-ahead

seating to better space households and individuals.
• Restaurants should ensure employees wear face masks for any interactions with
customers, co-workers, or while in common travel areas of the business (e.g., aisles,
hallways, loading docks, breakrooms, bathrooms, entries and exits). Restaurant
employees are not required to wear face masks while alone in personal offices,
while more than six (6) feet from any other individual, or if doing so would pose a
serious threat to their health or safety.
• Restaurants should use disposable menus, napkins, table cloths, disposable

utensils, and condiments to the greatest extent practicable. Restaurants are
encouraged to use electronic menus.
• Linens, such as cloth hampers, cloth napkins, table cloths, wiping cloths, and work
garments including cloth gloves, may still be utilized in dining establishments
consistent with Food service regulations 4-801.11 and 4-802.11. Linens, cloth
gloves, and cloth napkins are to be laundered between uses to prevent the transfer
of pathogenic microorganisms between foods or to food-contact surfaces
• Restaurants should discontinue use of any self-service drink stations to the greatest
extent practicable. Restaurants continuing self-service drink stations should
remove any unwrapped or non-disposable items (e.g. straws or utensils), as well as
fruit (e.g. lemons), sweeteners, creamers, and any condiment containers that are
not in single- use, disposable packages.
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000050 of 000056
• Restaurants should discontinue use of salad bars and other buffet style dining to
the greatest extent practicable. If a restaurant cannot discontinue buffet style
dining, the restaurant must ensure that employees provide buffet service.
Restaurants should not permit customer self-service. Restaurants providing buffet
service should ensure appropriate sneeze guards are in-place and that employees
are equipped with gloves and other PPE as appropriate.
• Restaurants should ensure employees use digital files rather than paper formats
(e.g., documentation, invoices, inspections, forms, agendas) to the greatest extent
practicable.
• Restaurants should, to the greatest extent practicable, modify internal traffic flow
to minimize contacts between employees and customers.
• Restaurants should, to the greatest extent practicable, demarcate six feet of

distance between customers and employees except at the moment of payment
and/or exchange of food and drink.
• Restaurants should implement contactless payment options, pickup, and delivery to

the greatest extent practicable.
• Restaurants should ensure, to the greatest extent practicable, that any receipts can
be completed electronically by using e-signature technology for signatures or by
creating a procedure whereby restaurant employees can complete the receipt for
the customer within the customer’s view.
• Restaurants should reduce, to the greatest extent practicable, the number of

employees and customers entering, exiting, or gathering at one time. One
suggested method to accomplish this is by staggering the beginning and end times
of employee shifts. In addition, for customers, one possible method to limit
gathering is to allow only one individual or household unit to enter the restaurant
at a time.
• Restaurants that require employees to operate equipment or vehicles must, to the

greatest extent practicable, limit the number of employees riding in the vehicle
together. If riding in separate vehicles is not practicable then employees should
maximize social distancing and wear face masks in the vehicle. Thorough cleaning
and disinfecting vehicles after each trip is required.
• Restaurants must restrict access to common areas, to the greatest extent

practicable, in order to maximize social distancing and reduce congregating. These
common areas include, but are not limited to, break rooms, waiting areas, and bars.
• Restaurants with warehouses and loading docks must ensure minimal interaction
between drivers at loading docks, doorsteps, or other locations.
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000051 of 000056
• Restaurants should, to the greatest extent practicable, limit the number of
individuals in a restroom to ensure proper social distancing and ensure that
frequently touched surfaces are appropriately disinfected (e.g., door knobs and
handles).
• Restaurants should provide hand sanitizer, handwashing facilities, and tissues in

convenient locations to the greatest extent practicable.
• Restaurants should prohibit gatherings or meetings of employees of ten (10) or

more during work hours.
• Restaurants should discourage employees from sharing workstations or other

work- related items and utensils, to the greatest extent practicable (e.g., ink pens
and aprons).
• Restaurants should, to the greatest extent practicable, install floor decals in cashier
and queuing areas to establish safe waiting distance.
• Restaurants should remind third-party delivery drivers and any suppliers of the
social distancing requirements.
• Restaurants providing “grab and go” service should stock coolers tono more than minimum
levels to prevent excess touching of items.
Cleaning and Disinfecting Requirements

• Restaurants should ensure workstations and seating areas are properly cleaned
and ventilated.
• Restaurants should encourage employees to frequently wash their hands or use

hand sanitizer, which should be provided by the restaurant.
• Restaurants must ensure cleaning and sanitation of frequently touched surfaces

with appropriate disinfectants. Areas with frequently touched surfaces or items,
include all seating, table-tops, and other table-top items, door handles, phones,
pens, and keypads. Appropriate disinfectants include EPA registered household
disinfectants, diluted household bleach solution, and alcohol solutions containing
at least 60% alcohol. Restaurants must establish a cleaning and disinfecting process
that follows CDC guidelines when any individual is identified, suspected, or
confirmed COVID-19 case.
• Restaurants should ensure employees wipe their workstations/cash registers down

with disinfectant at the end of their shift or at any time they discontinue use of
their workstations/cash register for a significant period of time.
• Restaurants should ensure disinfecting wipes or other disinfectant are available

near shared equipment (e.g. in kitchen, wait stations, and hostess stations).
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000052 of 000056
• Restaurants should encourage customers to use hand sanitizer or wipes prior to
dining in the restaurant and immediately following their meal.
• Restaurants should ensure employees do not use cleaning procedures that could
re- aerosolize infectious particles. This includes, but is not limited to, avoiding
practices such as dry sweeping or use of high-pressure streams of air, water, or
cleaning chemicals.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Requirements
• Restaurants must ensure appropriate face coverings and other personal protective
equipment (PPE) is used by employees whenever they are near other employees or
customers so long as such use does not jeopardize the employees’ health or safety.
Restaurants shall provide PPE at no cost to employees and should offer instruction on
proper use of masks and PPE.
• Restaurants must require contractors, vendors, and drivers to wear face coverings or
masks while at the location.
• Restaurants should establish a policy as to whether to serve customers who do not

adhere to the business’s policy on requiring masks while in common areas. While
customers of course will have to remove their masks in order to eat and drink,
restaurants may choose not to serve those customers who refuse to wear a mask
while away from their booth/table (i.e. entering, exiting, going to the restroom) in
order to protect their employees and other customers.
• Restaurants must train employees to properly dispose of or disinfect PPE, inspect

PPE for damage, maintain PPE, and the limitations of PPE.
• Restaurants must ensure, to the greatest extent practicable, that employees use
gloves, along with any PPE normally used for routine job tasks, when cleaning
equipment, workspaces, and high-touch areas of the business.
• Restaurants must ensure employees wash their hands with soap and water and/or
use hand sanitizer frequently after any direct contact customers, and when engaging
in high touch activities.
• Restaurants must ensure, to the greatest extent practicable, that employees wear
protective face coverings during any delivery.
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000053 of 000056
Training and Safety Requirements
• Restaurants must place conspicuous signage at entrances and throughout the

restaurant alerting staff and customers to the required occupancy limits, six feet of
physical distance, and policy on face coverings. Signage should inform employees
and customers about good hygiene and new practices.
• Restaurants should establish procedures for disinfecting table tops, seating, and dining ware
(plates, bowls, utensils).
• Restaurants should post signage on entrance door that no one with a fever or
symptoms of COVID-19 is to be permitted in the restaurant.
• Restaurants should, to the greatest extent practicable, implement hours where

service can be safely provided to customers at higher risk for severe illness per CDC
guidelines. These guidelines are available at:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019- ncov/faq.html#Higher-Risk
• Restaurants should ensure employees are informed that they may identify and
communicate potential improvements and/or concerns in order to reduce
potential risk of exposure at the workplace. All education and training must be
communicated in the language best understood by the individual receiving the
education and training.
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000054 of 000056

BOONE CIRCUIT COURT
Plaintiffs
and
Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel.

Attorney General Daniel Cameron
Intervening Plaintiff
v.

HEALTH DISTRICT, et al.
Defendants
ORDER GRANTING THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY EX REL.

ATTORNEY GENERAL DANIEL CAMERON’S MOTION TO INTERVENE
Attorney General Daniel Cameron having moved to intervene on behalf of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky as of right under Rule 24.01, and the Court having heard
the argument of counsel, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, hereby ORDERS:
1. The Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel. Attorney General Daniel Cameron’s
Motion to Intervene under Rule 24.01 is GRANTED;
2. The Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel. Attorney General Daniel Cameron is
hereby named an Intervening Plaintiff;
3. The Clerk shall file the Intervening Complaint in the record as of this date and
serve the Defendants;
1
4. The Defendants shall file a response to the Intervening Petition within ___
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000055 of 000056

days; and
5. The Clerk and the parties shall update the caption and style of this case to
reflect the Attorney General’s intervention on behalf of the Commonwealth.
It is SO ORDERED this the __ day of _____, 2020.
____________________________________
Judge, Boone Circuit Court
2
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000056 of 000056

I certify that on July __, 2020, a copy of the above was filed with the Court and
served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the following:
Barry L. Dunn Jeffrey C. Mando

S. Chad Meredith Claire E. Parsons
Office of the Attorney General Olivia Amlung
700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118 40 West Pike Street
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Covington, KY 41011
Barry.Dunn@ky.gov Counsel for Northern Kentucky
Chad.Meredith@ky.gov Independent Health District
Kentucky
Christopher Wiest Thomas Bruns

25 Town Center Blvd, Suite 104 4750 Ashwood Drive, Suite 200
Crestview Hills, KY 41017 Cincinnati, OH 45241
Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for the Plaintiff
Robert A. Winter, Jr. Steven Stack, M.D.

P.O. Box 175883 275 E. Main Street
Fort Mitchell, KY 41017 Frankfort, KY 40621
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Hon. Andrew Beshear, Governor Cabinet for Health and Family Services
Commonwealth of Kentucky 275 E. Main Street
700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 100 Frankfort, KY 40621
Frankfort, KY 40601
Secretary Eric Friedlander Dr. Lynne Saddler, M.D.,

Cabinet for Health and Family Services District Director of Health
275 E. Main Street Northern Kentucky Independent
Frankfort, KY 40621 Health District
8001 Veterans Memorial Drive
Florence, KY 41042
____________________________________
Clerk, Boone Circuit Court

KYOAG - Beshear Challenges

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

KYOAG - Beshear Challenges

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000001 of 000056

FLORENCE SPEEDWAY, INC., et al.

NORTHERN KENTUCKY INDEPENDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY EX REL. ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Commonwealth of Kentucky, by and through Attorney General Daniel

Cameron, respectfully moves to intervene in this action as a matter of right to protect

the constitutional rights of the Commonwealth’s citizenry. See CR 24.01;

Under CR 24.01, “[u]pon timely application, anyone shall be permitted to

intervene in an action . . . when a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene.”

statute confers a conditional right to intervene or (b) when an applicant’s claim or

Commonwealth’s motion satisfies both rules.

274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000002 of 000056

The Commonwealth has a statutory right to intervene sufficient for purposes

initiate a suit questioning the constitutionality or legality of an executive action.” Id.

On June 22, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking judicial

review of a series of executive orders issued by Governor Beshear. 1 The amended

multiple provisions of Kentucky’s constitution. Among other allegations, Plaintiffs

274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000003 of 000056

Sections 27 and 28 of the Kentucky Constitution; 3) exceeded his statutory authority

procedures provided by KRS Chapter 13A.

On behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Attorney General Cameron,

suspect. Because “the Attorney General’s primary obligation is to the

Commonwealth, the body politic, rather than to its officers, departments,

commissions, or agencies,” the Attorney General Cameron, moves to intervene as of

The Commonwealth, by and through Attorney General Cameron, also satisfies

Because the Commonwealth’s claims involve “a question of law or fact in common,”

permissive intervention is appropriate. CR 24.02.

274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000004 of 000056

Wherefore Attorney General Daniel Cameron, on behalf of the Commonwealth

of Kentucky, respectfully moves this Court to grant its motion to intervene. As

required by Rule 24.03, an intervening complaint accompanies this motion.

/s/ Barry L. Dunn

Counsel for the Commonwealth of

274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000005 of 000056

Christopher Wiest Thomas Bruns

Robert A. Winter, Jr. Steven Stack, M.D.

Secretary Eric Friedlander Dr. Lynne Saddler, M.D.,

/s/ Barry L. Dunn

274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000006 of 000056

FLORENCE SPEEDWAY, INC., et al.

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ex rel.

NORTHERN KENTUCKY INDEPENDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY EX REL. ATTORNEY GENERAL

On behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Attorney General Daniel

Andrew Beshear, in his official capacity as the Governor of Kentucky, Eric

274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000007 of 000056

1. There are nearly 4.5 million people in Kentucky. 2 And although

Kentucky has three branches of government, with a General Assembly composed of

his political appointees: Governor Andrew Beshear.

2. Through a series of overbroad and overreaching executive orders,

each passing day, he subjects Kentuckians to increasing uncertainty about how he

3. But it doesn’t have to be this way. And under Kentucky’s Constitution

274A9B7A-ED2E-4430-8BA1-D5253C68F383 : 000008 of 000056

4. This Complaint for a Declaration of Rights and Injunctive Relief is

Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 57.

6. An actual and justiciable controversy exists in this action.

7. Given the grave concerns set forth in this Complaint, the

Commonwealth respectfully requests expedited review under KRS 418.050 and CR

8. Daniel Cameron is the duly elected Attorney General of the

Commonwealth of Kentucky. He is the lawyer for the people of Kentucky. KRS

15.020; Commonwealth ex rel. Beshear v. Commonwealth ex rel. Bevin, 498 S.W.3d

Attorney General Cameron brings this suit on behalf of the Commonwealth of