Did Shelly Luther Break The Law?

Shelley Luther is a Texas salon owner who was sentenced to seven days in jail and fined $7,000 for violating stay-at-home orders during the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 24, 2020, Luther reopened her salon, Salon À la Mode, in defiance of a city quote and a cease-and-desist letter from local authorities. This act of disobedience sparked controversy and led to legal repercussions, with Judge Eric Moye ordering her to cease and desist, which she also refused. The question arises: Did Shelley Luther break the law?

Shelley Luther's violation of a restraining order

Shelley Luther, a salon owner in North Dallas, became a symbol for conservatives who believed the pandemic restrictions were overreaching. She defied state and local emergency orders to close nonessential businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

On April 24, 2020, Luther received a citation from the Dallas police for opening her salon, Salon à la Mode. She then received a cease-and-desist letter demanding her business to close, which she refused. On April 28, local authorities asked District Judge Eric Moyé to require the business be closed. Luther responded that she would remain open, stating that:

> "If I have to go to jail to prove a point that what they're doing is totally unconstitutional, then that's what happens."

On May 5, Judge Moyé sentenced Luther to seven days in jail and a $7,000 fine for violating his order and keeping her business open. Luther appealed to the state Supreme Court, which ordered her release from jail on May 7 on a personal bond while it reviewed the case.

The Texas Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Judge Moyé's temporary restraining order was void as it did not meet legally required standards and did not specify what conduct was prohibited. As a result, Luther did not have to serve the remainder of her jail sentence or pay the fine.

Judge Eric Moye's sentencing of Luther to 7 days in jail

On May 5, 2020, Judge Eric Moye sentenced Shelley Luther to seven days in jail and a $7,000 fine for violating Texas stay-at-home orders. Luther, a salon owner in Dallas, had gained attention for keeping her salon open during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite local restrictions and a court order.

Prior to her sentencing, Judge Moye gave Luther an opportunity to avoid jail time by apologising, admitting she was wrong, and agreeing to close her salon until it was allowed to reopen. However, Luther refused, stating that "feeding my kids is not selfish. If you think the law is more important than kids getting fed, then please go ahead with your decision, but I am not going to shut the salon."

The case had been advanced by local authorities on April 28, who asked Judge Moye to require the business be closed. Luther responded by declaring that if she had to "go to jail to prove a point that what they're doing is totally unconstitutional, then that's what happens."

The sentencing of Luther received national attention and was widely criticised. She immediately appealed the decision, ultimately appealing to the Texas Supreme Court. She received significant support from the Republican Party, including Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, who stated that Judge Moye had abused his discretion and should immediately order Luther's release.

On May 7, just two days after her sentencing, Abbott changed his executive orders to remove the possibility of imprisonment as a penalty for violating them, which led to Luther's release.

Luther's refusal to apologise and close her salon

Shelley Luther, an American salon owner, was sentenced to seven days in jail and a $7,000 fine for violating Texas's stay-at-home orders by keeping her salon open during the COVID-19 pandemic. Luther's refusal to apologise and close her salon, Salon À la Mode, sparked widespread controversy and brought her into the national spotlight.

Initially, Luther complied with the stay-at-home orders that forced most businesses to close. However, in April 2020, she decided to reopen her salon, citing economic concerns as her reason. She stated that she had no other source of income to support her family and had to pay rent. On April 24, she received a citation from the Dallas police and a cease-and-desist letter demanding that she close her business. Luther, however, declared that she would remain open and attended a rally protesting lockdowns, where she tore up the cease-and-desist letter.

As the case gained attention, several Texas Republican Party politicians urged Governor Greg Abbott to intervene and allow salons to remain open. On May 5, Judge Eric Moyé offered Luther the opportunity to avoid jail time if she apologised and agreed to close her salon. Moyé stated that she could receive just a fine instead of incarceration. Luther, however, refused to apologise and stood by her decision. She responded to the judge, saying, "Feeding my kids is not selfish. If you think the law is more important than kids getting fed, then please go ahead with your decision, but I am not going to shut the salon."

Luther's case highlighted the tensions between public health mandates and economic concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her refusal to apologise and close her salon made her a symbol of resistance for some, while others criticised her actions as irresponsible and selfish. Luther's stance on the issue gained her national attention, and she later entered politics, running for a seat in the Texas House of Representatives.

The Supreme Court of Texas's decision to release Luther

The decision to release Shelley Luther was made by the Texas Supreme Court on May 7, 2020, two days after her imprisonment. The order was given by the court for the release of the Dallas hair salon owner who was jailed for violating the state's stay-at-home mandate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Luther was in custody at the Lew Sterrett Justice Center in Dallas.

Luther had received public support from Governor Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Paxton had also appealed to Moyé, stating that he "had abused his discretion and should immediately order Luther's release." Abbott, on the other hand, had tweeted that he is "eliminating jail for violating an order, retroactive to April 2, superseding local orders... criminals shouldn’t be released to prevent COVID-19 just to put business owners in their place."

The Texas Supreme Court's decision came after Luther and her lawyers appealed to the court, following her sentencing by District Judge Eric Moyé on May 5, 2020. Luther was sentenced to seven days in jail and a fine of $7,000 on contempt of court charges for disobeying a temporary restraining order that prevented her from operating her salon business.

Luther's imprisonment received national attention and sparked controversy, with many criticising the sentence as excessive. The case highlighted the tension between public health measures to control the spread of COVID-19 and the economic concerns of small businesses. Luther had argued that she needed to keep her salon open to support her family and pay rent.

The legality of the restraining order

Shelley Luther, an American salon owner and politician, was sentenced to seven days in jail and a $7,000 fine for violating Texas's stay-at-home orders by Judge Eric Moye. Luther had gained attention for keeping her salon open during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite local restrictions and a court order.

On April 24, 2020, Luther reopened her salon, Salon À la Mode, in defiance of the Dallas County Judge's "Safer at Home Order" and the City of Dallas's "Fourth Amended Emergency Regulations". As a result, she received a notice of violation from a Dallas Code Inspector and a cease-and-desist letter from the County Judge. On April 28, the local authorities filed a case against Luther for violating the emergency regulations, and the court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring her to shut down her salon.

Arguments Supporting the Legality of the Restraining Order:

• Public Health and Safety: The primary argument in favour of the restraining order is that Luther's actions endangered public health and safety. By keeping her salon open, she increased the risk of COVID-19 transmission, which was a serious concern during the pandemic. The court's decision to issue the TRO was based on this rationale, stating that Luther's salon operation endangered the health of others.
• Compliance with Executive Orders: Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton supported the restraining order, arguing that compliance with executive orders during the pandemic was crucial to ensure public safety. Abbott modified his executive orders to remove the possibility of imprisonment as a penalty for violations, acknowledging that there should be less restrictive means to achieve compliance.
• Legality of Emergency Regulations: The City of Dallas argued that their emergency regulations, which Luther violated, were valid and enforceable. They claimed that these regulations were necessary to protect public health and were within the scope of their authority to issue.

Arguments Against the Legality of the Restraining Order:

• Lack of Bond: One of the main arguments against the legality of the restraining order is the absence of a bond. Typically, a restraining order that directs a person to stop working and earning an income is paired with a bond to compensate for monetary damages. Luther's lawyers argued that the City of Dallas never posted a bond, which rendered the TRO invalid.
• Emergency Rules are not "Law": Luther's legal team, including her lawyer Warren Norred, argued that the emergency rules upon which the restraining order was based were not actual laws. They contended that only the Texas state legislature has the authority to make laws, and the City of Dallas's regulations did not have the force of law.
• Violation of Federalism: Norred also argued that the restraining order violated the principles of federalism. He claimed that the City of Dallas's emergency regulations "break the rules of federalism" because they attempt to create laws that supersede state law.
• Selective Enforcement: There were also allegations of selective enforcement, as other salons in Dallas that remained open during the "stay-at-home" order were not persecuted by local authorities. This raised questions about the fairness and consistency of the restraining order against Luther.

The Texas Supreme Court's eventual decision on the legality of the restraining order is not publicly available at this time. The court has several options, including denying or granting the writ, which could result in different conclusions about the validity of the restraining order and the associated jail sentence.

Frequently asked questions