Both cases also addressed a more fundamental question: Is the rule of law suspended during a public health emergency?
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, state officials have imposed unprecedented restrictions on our liberties and livelihoods, acting on the assumption that they can do whatever they think is necessary to protect the public from a potentially deadly disease.
The courts, which were initially reluctant to second-guess state responses to COVID-19, are beginning to recognize that public health powers, while broad, are not a blank check.
The Wisconsin case involved a dispute between two branches of the state government.
The Republican leaders of the state legislature argued that Andrea Palm, a Democrat who runs the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, was exercising powers she had never been granted when she ordered the closure of "Nonessential" businesses and confined residents to their homes except for purposes she approved, threatening violators with fines and jail.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court last week concluded that Palm's order qualified as a "Rule" under state law, meaning she could not legally impose it without following emergency rulemaking procedures she admittedly ignored.
Even in an emergency-especially in an emergency-government officials are bound by the law.
https://reason.com/2020/05/20/a-pandemic-does-not-suspend-the-rule-of-law/
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, state officials have imposed unprecedented restrictions on our liberties and livelihoods, acting on the assumption that they can do whatever they think is necessary to protect the public from a potentially deadly disease.
The courts, which were initially reluctant to second-guess state responses to COVID-19, are beginning to recognize that public health powers, while broad, are not a blank check.
The Wisconsin case involved a dispute between two branches of the state government.
The Republican leaders of the state legislature argued that Andrea Palm, a Democrat who runs the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, was exercising powers she had never been granted when she ordered the closure of "Nonessential" businesses and confined residents to their homes except for purposes she approved, threatening violators with fines and jail.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court last week concluded that Palm's order qualified as a "Rule" under state law, meaning she could not legally impose it without following emergency rulemaking procedures she admittedly ignored.
Even in an emergency-especially in an emergency-government officials are bound by the law.
https://reason.com/2020/05/20/a-pandemic-does-not-suspend-the-rule-of-law/
No comments:
Post a Comment