Small Businesses File Brief Against California’s Unconstitutional Shutdowns

Ghost Golf v. Newsom concerns the separation of powers

Date: November 08, 2023 – You can find this article HERE in its entirety on NFIB’s website. You can also sign up for their newsletter.

FRESNO, Calif. (Nov. 8, 2023) – NFIB filed an amicus brief in the case Ghost Golf Inc. et al. v. Gavin Newsom at the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District. The case concerns Governor Newsom’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy, the government shutdown of businesses ordered during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the separation of powers.

Thanks for reading this post and Brass Ring also thanks those whose content is shared here on our website. We present it in order to pass on their knowledge to our small business clients so it can help them remain informed, healthy and growing their businesses. Please bookmark our site, subscribe to our newsletter and come back for more marketing, small business & WordPress tips, advice, tools & news! - Edward A. Sanchez

“The Blueprint was a statewide one-size-fits-all mandate, which harmed small businesses in the state,” said Beth Milito, Executive Director of NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center. “California’s Constitution does not permit such power in the hands of the Governor and California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and we ask the court to serve as a meaningful check on their actions.”

NFIB’s brief argues two main points: 1) actions taken by the Governor and the CDPH to address the COVID-19 pandemic violated California’s separation of powers, eroding the liberty of Californians and the State’s small businesses, and 2) those actions to address the COVID-19 pandemic destroyed small businesses during the pandemic and continue to have a lasting negative impact on businesses post-pandemic.

The NFIB Small Business Legal Center protects the rights of small business owners in the nation’s courts. NFIB is currently active in more than 40 cases in federal and state courts across the country and in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Leave a Reply