Earlier this month, a group of state officials, religious and business leaders sued Hogan for a temporary restraining order to block the governor’s order. Although the state asked a federal judge to dismiss the case, a calendar hearing was held last week – a few days before Hogan announced the end of the state foreclosure – indicating that he would go ahead.
In Ohio, a libertarian group filed a lawsuit early last week on behalf of nearly three dozen independent gyms in the state, challenging the exclusion of these facilities from the initial stages of reopening Ohio. The same group had previously attempted and failed to launch a court challenge against the state’s closure of non-essential businesses. One day after filing the lawsuit in state court, Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted announced that state gyms and fitness centers will be allowed to reopen on May 26.
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court was even caught up in the fray when the high court denied a group of Pennsylvania business owners to lift the closures of non-core businesses in the United States. ‘State.
Legal threats against Democrats who have maintained tighter social distancing restrictions have taken different forms.
In Texas, for example, the pressure came from top to bottom. There, State Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday threatened leaders of three large metropolitan areas – Austin, Dallas and San Antonio – of legal action if they do not cancel part of their orders local home stay.
The first waves of litigation under closure orders concerned issues such as access to abortion and religious services. The latter question is still a factor in many of the lawsuits against the governors – and one of the few areas where judges have shown a greater willingness to overrule heads of state.
But the latest round of lawsuits was aimed at determining whether the governors have the power to unilaterally extend their initial orders and to curb the protests that continue to take place in the state capitals of the country.
Regarding local shelter orders, however, judges have for the most part deferred to the broad authority of governors under their respective constitutions to take drastic measures in the event of a health emergency public.
The Wisconsin on-site shelter order is the first of its kind to be set aside by the courts. It is unclear whether business will continue to progress as governors begin to lift aspects of the restrictions on social separation that litigants are difficult. But it is unlikely that any other statewide order will suffer the same fate.
“It’s not impossible” that Whitmer’s orders would be overturned by Michigan courts, said Richard Primus, a professor of law at the University of Michigan, who filed an amicus brief in this case. “The thing with Hail Passes is that sometimes they work, and sometimes crazy things happen in the courts.”
A first decision in this case could take place next week and will almost certainly be appealed to the state’s Supreme Court. But Primus warns that the outcome will be narrow rather than a large referendum on civil liberties and the excessive reach of the executive, as some have described.