Whether Minnesota's Governor has qualified immunity against Petitioners' Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claims

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Minnesota’s Governor has qualified immunity against Petitioners’ Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claims for ordering the shut-down of their businesses—but not other like businesses—and prohibiting ingress into those shut-down business properties based on the Governor’s declaration of a COVID19 pandemic emergency. 2. Whether the Court should overrule Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), and reinstate the requirement in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), that lower courts examine whether a government official violated a constitutional right before proceeding to the question of whether the law governing that official’s conduct was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. 3. Whether a government official sued in his or her individual capacity may be liable for takings under the Fifth Amendment. 4. Whether Petitioners’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause are not moot because Minnesota’s Governor voluntarily ceased his shutdown orders, which conduct can later be resumed, after vigorously defending those orders throughout this case.