The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled 5–2 in a pair of decisions that bar owners may pursue their lawsuits against the state over COVID-19 pandemic-related shutdowns in 2020.

The similar rulings in the cases of Howell v. Cooper and North Carolina Bar and Tavern Association v. Stein were issued on Aug. 22.

In both cases, the court held that bar owners should be allowed to pursue their claims that the state policy ran afoul of the right guaranteed in the state constitution to the “fruits of their own labor.” Both cases were sent back to lower courts for trial.

The North Carolina Supreme Court had agreed in June 2024 to consider the appeals after the North Carolina Court of Appeals found in April that there was no evidence to support the decision of then-Gov. Roy Cooper to force some bars to shut down during the COVID-19 pandemic while allowing others to stay open.

In an executive order in March 2020, Cooper directed all bars in North Carolina to shut down. Two months later, he signed a new executive order that permitted bars inside restaurants to reopen but required others to remain closed.

The first executive order might have been reasonable, but the second was irrational, the Court of Appeals found.

Attorneys for the state argued that the holding was wrong because Cooper’s orders forcing some bars to shut down and allowing others to stay open were lawful because they were “rationally related to a proper governmental purpose.”

In the North Carolina Supreme Court’s new ruling in Howell v. Cooper, the court majority held that those challenging the executive orders had sufficient evidence “to support the alleged violations of their rights to earn a living.”

The court also rejected the state’s claim that the lawsuit was barred by sovereign immunity.

Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that prevents governments from being sued unless they consent to being sued. The sovereign immunity of U.S. states is enshrined in the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The court majority stated that although the COVID-19 pandemic era “was a chaotic period of time,” the governor “was not the only person facing uncertainty.”

Small business owners shut down and scaled back their operations without knowing when they could reopen or operate fully again.

“They, too, did not know what the future held and were without the benefit of hindsight,” the court majority wrote. “Many were compelled to lay off employees, deplete cash reserves, take out unwanted loans, or close for good.”

The fact that the state constitution enshrines a fundamental right to the fruits of one’s own labor means that “the basic promise of the state constitution is that government regulations of this right are open to scrutiny.”

It may be the case that the governor’s restrictions on bars were necessary, but the state constitution allows the challengers “the opportunity to put them to the test,” the court majority said.

In a dissenting opinion in Howell v. Cooper, Justice Anita Earls said the court majority “grants itself a roving license to second-guess policy choices, reweigh trade-offs, and displace decisions appropriately made by the political branches.”

Justice Allison Riggs filed a partially dissenting opinion in North Carolina Bar and Tavern Association v. Stein.

The lower court erred when it rejected the state’s argument that the claim should be barred on sovereign immunity grounds, she said.

The Bar and Tavern Association hailed the ruling in its case as a “major victory.”

“From the beginning, we never asked for special treatment, only equal treatment,” the association’s president, Zack Medford, said.

North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson did not reply to a request for comment by publication time.

Zachary Stieber and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared Aug. 25, 2025, in The Epoch Times.