Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, v. Mt. Gretna Entertainment, Inc., t/a Quentin Tavern

Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, v. Mt. Gretna Entertainment, Inc., t/a Quentin Tavern

Civil Action-Constitutional Law-Administrative Law-Emergency Services Management Code-COVID-19 Pandemic-Restrictions Against Sale and Consumption of Alcohol-Inside Premises-Violations-Liquor License-Privilege-Property Right-Equal Protection of the Law-Nondelegation of Powers-Due Process of the Law

Following the issuance of Proclamation of Disaster Emergency pursuant to the Emergency Services Management Code, Mt. Gretna Entertainment, Inc., t/a Quentin Tavern (“Quentin Tavern”) was charged with violations of the COVID-mitigation measures set forth in the Proclamation by serving and selling food and alcohol intended for consumption inside of the premises on December 23, 2020.  Quentin Tavern has appealed the findings of violations on the bases that the Proclamation violated constitutional protections including equal protection and due process of the law and the requirement of nondelegation of powers.   

1.  The courts of common pleas are required under the Liquor Code to conduct de novo review on questions of law, fact and administrative discretion.

2.  While a liquor license is property between a licensee and a third party, a liquor license is a purely personal privilege between the Liquor Control Board and the licensee for a specific limited time subject to revocation by the Liquor Control Board for cause.

3.  Pursuant to Title 35 P.S. § 7301(f), the Governor is provided statutory authority by the General Assembly during a declared emergency to suspend or limit the sale, dispensing or transportation of alcoholic beverages.

4.  Where all establishments in the retail food services industry, both licensed and unlicensed, were required to abide to the Proclamation, there was no violation of equal protection. 

5.  The temporary limitations on dispensing and selling alcohol were rationally related to the legitimate interest in limiting exposure to and the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

6.  Under the non-delegation of powers doctrine, the legislature constitutionally may not delegate the power to make law to any other branch of the government. 

7.  The legislature may delegate policy making authority to an administrative agency as long as the legislature makes basic policy choices and establishes adequate standards that will guide and will restrain the exercise of the delegated administrative functions.

8.  In light of the fact that the General Assembly tasked the Secretary of Health with protecting the health of those in the Commonwealth by determining and employing the most efficient, practical means for preventing and suppressing the COVID-19 virus, no violation of the non-delegation or separation of powers doctrine occurred.     

9.  The amount of process that is due in any particular circumstance must be determined by application of a balancing test that considers three (3) factors:  (1) the private interest affected by the governmental action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation together with the value of additional or substitute safeguards; and (3) the state interest involved, including the administrative burden the additional or substitute procedural requirements would impose on the state.

10.  The initial orders temporarily closing businesses did not deprive owners of due process under the circumstances.

11.  Due process notice requirements are satisfied when a citation states the type and date of the alleged violation.

12.  Where the citation outlined the specific date and location of the violation and provisions alleged to have been violated, the citation satisfied due process notice requirements.

L.C.C.C.P. No. 2023-01627, Opinion by Charles T. Jones, Jr., Judge, January 14, 2025.