'Draconian'? 'House arrest'? Coronavirus lockdowns prompt raft of lawsuits against states
Camping in Scarborough, Maine. Gathering for church in Chincoteague, Virginia. Or just grabbing a burger at Poopy’s Pub and Grub in Savanna, Illinois.
Each of these activities became the subject of a federal lawsuit, as residents, businesses and even lawmakers challenged state shutdown orders designed to prevent the spread of novel coronavirus.
The cases test where the lines are safely drawn, as governors balance protecting public health against individual liberties. Governors say strict rules save lives, but critics who are forced to stay home or shutter their businesses called the steps “draconian” or compared them to “house arrest.” The lawsuits come as President Donald Trump has become increasingly vocal in criticism of state restrictions, encouraged protests at state capitols and urged churches to reopen despite restrictions.
More than 1,300 state and federal lawsuits have been filed over COVID-19, including 240 dealing with civil rights, as of Friday, according to Hunton Andrews Kurth, a law firm tracking the cases. USA TODAY reviewed more than 80 lawsuits that often dealt with conditions at prisons and nursing homes, voting rights, and university tuition. USA TODAY focused on legal challenges to restrictions such as stay-at-home orders and business closures, and also whether abortion or church services can be limited during the pandemic, to gauge which orders were being challenged and how states were responding.
The eventual rulings could redefine the balance between state police powers and constitutional rights that advocates contend are too important to sacrifice even temporarily. Abortions are time sensitive. Buyers want guns during times of crisis. And parishioners seek solace at church. Other lawsuits test whether rules go beyond legislative authorities by requiring people to isolate themselves, stay apart in public and wear masks.
“I tend to think there will be some new law made only because there are new scenarios that courts haven’t encountered before," said Polly Price, a law professor at Emory University. “What they’re balancing is the scientific basis for a particular measure and the state’s need for it, in the face of uncertainty, to protect the public health."
But Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, expected only minor changes in the scope of police powers because even if gun shops and churches win their lawsuits, their activities cover a small fraction of the overall shutdown.
“The scope of this kind of shutdown is unprecedented in American history and maybe even unprecedented in the history of liberal democracies generally," Somin said. "The overall impact of these cases on the police power, even if the plaintiffs ultimately succeed, is pretty small."
Edward Richards, a law professor at Louisiana State University who has a master’s degree in public health for disease control, said health restrictions have been held paramount since the threat of yellow fever hung over the Constitutional Convention. But he said businesses have always been skeptical and political leaders now openly question the legitimacy of health science.
“The legal picture doesn’t give us a real portrayal of the long-term ambivalent support toward public health," Richards said. "We’ve never had the governmental authorities starting with the president actively undermining the public’s trust in public health, actively questioning whether the diseases are actually serious.”
More
https://www.yahoo.com/news/draconian-house-arrest-coronavirus-lockdowns-100022995.html